Laserfiche WebLink
<br />enhanced." In the first place, the reservoir could not be kept. <br />constantly at elevation 3600 feet. It would have to be eVacuated far <br />below that point both to regulate the stream and to provide space for <br />snow melt runoff. In the second place, as mentioned above, with the <br />reservoir kept below elevation 3600 feet the Upper Basin States would, <br />as a minimum, be deprived of 1.1 million acre-feet of consumptive-use <br /> <br /> <br />projects they can have with operations to elevation 3700 feet. Is <br /> <br /> <br />this enhancement of projects? Why not be honest and s~ that the real <br /> <br /> <br />objective is to kill future economic expansion and social development <br /> <br /> <br />in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming? <br /> <br /> <br />(5) Anyone who would take the time to carefully study the <br /> <br /> <br />legislative history and negotiating histoT'J preceding the Colorado River <br /> <br /> <br />Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, and the Mexican Water <br /> <br /> <br />Treaty would understand that the interstate and international agreements <br /> <br /> <br />contained therein were predicated upon the construction of large storage <br /> <br /> <br />reservoirs. Anyone who would devote sufficient attention to a genuine <br /> <br /> <br />examination of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and the Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />River Basin Project Act would understand that these laws were enacted in <br /> <br /> <br />order to effectuate the agreements and make them equitably operable. <br /> <br />In fact, the latter goes so far as to describe parameters under which <br /> <br />Or; -It. <br /> <br />the federal <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />- <br />