Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION <br />STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE OFFICE BUilDING <br /> <br />COMMISSIONERS <br /> <br />JOE D. CARTER. CHAIRMAN <br />.715-2453 <br /> <br />August 5, 1977 <br /> <br />R. E. (BOB) SCHNEIDER <br /> <br />JOE R. CARROLL <br />.75.2451 <br /> <br />EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR <br />475-2452 <br />MARY ANN HEFNER <br />SECRETARV <br />475-4514 <br /> <br />CORSEY B. HARDEMAN <br />475.4325 <br /> <br />Mr. James M. Rose, Executive Director <br />Texas Water Development Board <br />P. O. Box 13087 <br />Austin, Texas 78711 <br /> <br />Re: U.S. Water Resources Council -- Draft <br />Technical Memorandum 4, Specific <br />Problem Analysis Summary Report, <br />1975 National Water Assessment, <br />June 1977. (Rio Grande Region. ) <br /> <br />Dear Jim: <br /> <br />This is in reply to your letter, file: TWDBP, received on July 26, <br />requesting comments on the referenced document by August 8. <br /> <br />Attached for your information and use isa copy of our July 13th <br />letterto Mr. K. B. Schroeder, Regional Study Director, U.S. Water <br />Resources Council, 1975 Water Assessment, Albuquerque, New Mexico, <br />in reply to Mr. Schroeder's June 30th letter. Note that a copy of our <br />reply was furnished to your office. <br /> <br />We have nothing substantive to add to our July 13th letter. How- <br />ever, we do wish to reemphasize that we submItted substantive review <br />com.ments and recommendations to Mr. Schroeder, and to your staff, <br />on the related document: Draft Technical Memorandum, Activity 3, <br />Phase II, Specific Problem Analysis, 1975 National Assessment, Rio <br />Grande Region (April 1977). We reaffirm these earlier review comments <br />and recommendations. And, while there is no doubt that reasonable <br />consideration was given to them in the preceding Draft Technical Memo- <br />randum Activity 3, Phase II; it is not clear to us why more of our recom- <br />mendations were not adopted by the staff of the Regional Study Director <br />at Albuquerque in preparing the Draft Technical Memorandum, Activity 4, <br />Phase II. Our review comments and recommendations pertained to matters <br />of factual accuracy and were deemed non-controversial. <br /> <br />0031'~i) <br /> <br />90 <br />AN FnUA' nPPnRTIJNITV FUPI nVFR <br />