OCR Text |
Show CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT 99 Canyon Dam alone, or of Glen Canyon alone, as Glen will not provide enough power head. Was the construction of Bridge contemplated mainly to supply pumping power for the Arizona project, without giving full consideration to a proper ultimate development of the river? Assuming that Bridge and Glen together are necessary for proper river development, why were not both of these dams and reservoirs included in the Arizona project? It seems that with the Bluff and Coconino Reservoirs in there would still be 70,000 acre-feet of silt depositing in Bridge, which would fill it up in 53 years. As Bridge Reservoir capacity decreased the firm power production would be seriously affected before the end of project repayments. Decrease of silt due to upstream developments may be very slow. Even if power capital costs can be amortized in 33.4 years (p. F-28), the loss of the power resources would be serious. 11. On page 7, paragraph 28, the report states: "Financial feasibility of the project is more difficult to determine (than the engineering feasibility)". Notwithstanding this, much of the report seems to be a mathematical effort to devise a financial program that will be acceptable to the Congress based on the urgent need for more water for present irrigated lands. Is this opinion correct? 12. The proposed allocation of 300,000 acre-feet plus a share of surplus water to Nevada in the Colorado River is of great value to this State. That interest is imperiled by lack of the tri-State compact authorized between Arizona, California, and Nevada. Without the tri-State compact Nevada must rely upon State laws for the water, and our rights are junior to those of California. Our present contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to use water stored in Lake Mead at a charge of 50 cents per acre-foot for storage is not a firm water right, and delivery is contingent upon mutual consent by Arizona and California. In time of water shortage or drought they might demand our water. We would not care to go into the courts and fight either Arizona or California for that water. It will be greatly to our advantage to have the water promptly adjudicated oy the United States Supreme Court, after which all downstream rights can be made firm by said compact. Certainly no great additional demand should be made on the river, such as is contemplated by the Arizona project, until the language of the Colorado River compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act with respect to the division of the lower basin water has been clarified. Very truly yours, Alfred Merritt Smith, State Engineer. |
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] : |