Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O"..ft <br /> <br />These conclusions are based upon his analysis of each of eleven points, <br /> <br />any one of which fully justifies Colorado or any other Upper Basin State <br /> <br />taking aggressive action, including intervening in the lawsuit, to protect <br /> <br />its interests in the Colorado River. Five of these points were taken <br /> <br />from Colorado's Senate Joint Resolution, five were attributed to Mr. <br /> <br />Feliz L. Sparks, Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and <br /> <br />one was from a publication of the Upper Colorado River Commission whose <br /> <br />membership includes New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Colorado. <br /> <br />To anyone who knows even the rudiments of hydrologic and legal <br /> <br />factors related to the Colorado River System and its operation it is <br /> <br />apparent that Dr. Guadagno's analyses of the eleven points are, for the <br /> <br />most part, either deliberately misleading or unintentionally untrue due <br /> <br />to ignorance of the facts. Either w~, .such a presentation to a respect- <br /> <br />able conservation organization should not be allowed to remain as the <br /> <br />final word. An examination of each analysis by Dr. Guadagno of his <br /> <br />selected eleven points is in order. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(1) The doctor asserts that the ability of a reservoir to <br /> <br />regulate flows of a river is a complex function of the capacity of the <br /> <br />reservoir, the flow of the stream, and the variability in flow. To <br /> <br />that point he is correct, but there are other factors, too. Why omit <br /> <br />from this complexity such items of major importance as the unpredictable <br /> <br />sequence of highly erratic, widely fluctuating annual and seasonal flows <br /> <br />of the Colorado River, about which he is reporting, and the legal and <br /> <br />institutional requirements with which compliance must be maintained under <br /> <br />an international treaty and two interstate compacts? Why either delitdr- <br /> <br />ately or inadvertently omit the fact that these legal and institutional <br /> <br />mandates have been <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />-.-.---- <br />