OCR Text |
Show COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO 57 projects in Colorado for consideration as near-future into an upper basin and a lower basin, and in article II development probabilities. thereof defines the Colorado River Basin to include all the drainage area tributary to the Colorado River sys- DETAILED VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS tem in the United States, and also all parts of the States . , of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Introduction Utah> and Wyom;ng which (though outside of said The report contains much valuable engineering data natural basin) "are now or shall hereafter be bene-and factual information concerning the resources, needs, finally served by waters diverted from the Colorado and problems of the territory covered by it. This in- River system." The territory covered by the report conformation concerns the waters of the Colorado River and forms to the compact definition in the lower basin, but its tributaries in the United States and includes estimates departs therefrom in the upper basin. It includes areas of the existing and present status of water utilization in outside the natural basin in California, but excludes each of the affected States, and of power production in similar areas in Colorado, and in other States of the the region therein designated the Colorado River Basin. upper basin which are parts of the Colorado River Basin The report also contains a list of so-called potential proj- as defined in the Colorado River compact. This differ-ects or units of projects considered possible of future ent treatment of the upper and lower basins, and of the construction, together with preliminary estimates of States of California and Colorado, is a matter to which their probable construction costs under both prewar and the State of Colorado heretofore has objected, for the current conditions, and with estimates (expressed as reason that such different treatment is not conducive to totals, rather than by individual projects) of the aggre- amicable relations and understandings between the two gate benefits to the Nation, of the total revenues probably basins and the two States. The State of Colorado urges collectible from combined water and power users, and and recommends that the report be modified so as to of total depletions, reported in part as subtotals by States treat both basins and all States alike, and to make it and in part unallocated among the States. consistent in all respect with the Colorado River corn-Colorado appreciates the value of this factual informa- pact. tion, and recognizes that much labor, time, and money , . _ **»«.•¦_• . „ , has been devoted to the preparation of the report. How- ^consistent Treatment of Out-basin Propel, in Utah ever, after a careful consideration of its contents, and its " ° ora ° plans and proposals, the view reached by the State of With respect to enterprises and projects which divert Colorado is that the report should be modified, to elimi- water from the Colorado River system above Lees Ferry nate its inconsistencies, improve its accuracy and com- for use outside the natural basin, the States of Utah pleteness, and increase its utility and value to the affected and Colorado are not treated alike in the report. Such States and to the Congress. To such ends, Colorado diversion enterprises and projects in Utah are listed respectfully recommends that the report be modified by name and individually, each with specified depletion before being adopted by the Secretary of the Interior estimations. Similar diversion enterprises and projects and before being transmitted to the President and to the in Colorado are not listed by name or individually, and Congress. These comments shall be deemed objections their estimated depletions are reported merely as ag- to the plans and proposals of the Department of the In- gregate diversions by tributary stream basins. Colorado terior and the Bureau of Reclamation unless and until urges again that the report be modified so as to treat the report shall have been modified in accordance with all affected States alike in the above-mentioned and all these views and recommendations as hereinafter out- other respects, lined. As a Comprehensive Plan for Development the Report is Inconsistent Treatment of Areas Outside of Natural Incomplete and Misleading The report contains a list of so-called potential The so-called comprehensive report purports to cover projects. Actually, this list constitutes an inventory of the Colorado River Basin. Considered in the light of development possibilities which in most instances await the proposal of the report lhat affected States make de- detailed investigations and individual project reports, terminations consistent with the Colorado River com- It presents estimates of construction costs, benefits to pact, the report is neither comprehensive nor consistent the Nation, probable collectible revenues from combined with the Colorado River compact, since it relates to and water and power users, and water-supply depletions, for covers a territory which differs from the Colorado River what is described as a stage of ultimate development. Basin as defined in the compact. The Colorado River These estimates are based on the assumption, among compact, negotiated at Santa Fe, N. Mex., November others, that all the so-called potential projects listed in 22,1922, divides the Colorado River Basin at Lees Ferry the report will be constructed and operated to the limits |
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] : |