OCR Text |
Show 56 THE COLORADO RIVER from Lake Mead, the report engenders further interstate other basin and neither basin should be restricted or controversy in that- delayed in its development by the failure of the other (a) It endeavors to impose upon the States the burden basin States to divide the water apportioned to that basin of interpreting, construing, and applying these contracts; by the Colorado River compact. Colorado recognizes (b) It fails to disclose that any "surplus" water de- the desirability of an allocation of water to the individual livered to California water users under these contracts is States comprising the upper basin. While it is true that not firm water since surplus water as defined under the compact negotiations are in progress among the States compact may not be apportioned between the two basins of the upper basin, and that the construction of addi-by interstate compact before 1963; tional major projects should await allocation of water (c) It fails to disclose that the aggregate amounts of to the States, there are projects which will assuredly use water for delivery to the States and water users of the water falling well within the equitable share of the State lower basin from Lake Mead under the contracts are where located and which should not be made to await inconsistent with the allocations of water made to the any final allocation of water. lower basin by the Colorado River compact, because in 8. The report is unsound in implying that each indi- the contracts with Arizona and Nevada recognition is vidual State should allocate water to specific projects made of reservoir and channel conveyance losses while within such State. Colorado adheres to the appropria- in contracts with California water users such losses are tion doctrine of water law and thereunder water users ignored. are entitled to water in accordance with the priority of 3. The report is inconsistent in that water supplies their individual appropriations. Any change in such for existing and potential projects for the diversion of system in Colorado will require a constitutional amend-water from the natural basin of the Colorado River for ment. use in other basins in Colorado are estimated as sums or 9. The report is unsound in that it recommends that totals from one basin to another, whereas in other States the States approve projects for the so-called initial stage of the upper basin the estimates include descriptions of of development without there being available at the individual projects. same time adequate data and information for the deter- 4. The report is misleading and inconsistent in that mination of the desirability, economic feasibility, or it lists individual projects and presents estimates of con- probability of authorization and construction of indi-struction costs, benefits to the Nation, and collectible vidual projects. Only in instances where detailed inves-revenues based upon the assumption that all of such tigations are completed and individual project reports projects will be constructed and operated to the limits are available can there be a worth-while selection of any of their ultimate capacities. At the same time the report projects. concludes that inadequate water supplies will prohibit I0. The report is unsound in that it contemplates a the construction of some of these projects. Thus in the general group authorization of projects for construc- total figures for costs, returns, and benefits, consideration tion rathcr than a specific authorization of individual is given to projects which cannot be constructed. projects 5. The report is unsound in that it fails to give con- Colorado believes that each and all of the foregoing sideration to the desirability and feasibility of individual views m fundamental and important and reCommendS projects and thus fails to furnish any true and usable ^ ^ be modlfied £Q conform therewith. The guide for a development program. * [nv of ( ntialiti 6. The report is unsound in that it attempts to pre- , b , . , . .r ,, sent a comprehensive development plan, but ignores a* known at the Pf"11 l™e' a^ ?l f"8™ miM? Valu" the elementary fact that the desired orderly develop- able engineering data and factual information. It must ment will result from the construction from time to be rec°gn>zed that as a complete list of all construction time of individual projects which upon full and com- potentialities or possibilities of using Colorado River plete investigation prove to be feasible, justified, and water> &e rePort is far from complete. needed, and which will be desired by local beneficiaries UPon the making of the report as modified in accord-after their repayment obligations are known. ance with the objections, views, and recommendations 7. The report is unsound in recommending that all noted above, Colorado believes that the Bureau of Recla-seven of the States of the Colorado River Basin jointly mation will have satisfied the requirements of section agree upon a determination of their respective rights to 15 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. There will re-deplete the flow of the Colorado River before major main, however, for the future, the task of investigating development may proceed. The Colorado River com- and reporting on individual projects for construction, pact apportions water between the upper basin and the There follows a detailed statement of the comments, lower basin. Neither basin is concerned with the ap- views, and recommendations of the State of Colorado, portionment between States of the share allocated to the Reference is there made in paragraph 12 to particular |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |