OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX VI VI-71 66 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT have been the intention of the Colorado River compact negotiators to provide equality of opportunity to develop in both basins as well as to protect the deferment of that opportunity in the upper basin. Perhaps our objection to the method of handling evaporation from upper basin reservoirs should be directed to the definition of "basic firm" of the "general principles" instead of to the method of computation set forth at the Boulder City meeting. If this be the case, "basic firm" should be redefined. At the January 9, 1961, meeting of Bureau engineers and our committee, the argument was expressed that because all studies made by the engineers representing the Bureau, the lower basin and the upper basin have included evaporation from upper basin reservoirs in the computed inflow to Lake Mead, the reservoir filling criteria should also have the evaporated water included. This line of reasoning is without both foundation and logic. In the first place our office has made studies in which the evaporated water was excluded, and the results of these studies were forwarded to your office. Secondly, at no time has it been intended that the use of any of the basic data constituted an admission of fact. In the very beginning it was emphasized time after time that the studies were to be made for the purpose of determining the relative magnitudes of the effects of various assumed criteria, or, as graphically expressed by one of the Bureau's capable engineers, "to determine the size of the critter." It was agreed that the same basic data would be used by all engineers in order to have the studies on a comparable basis. The following statement appears on page 8 of the status report "Glen Canyon Filling Studies, March 1959," prepared by the engineering group representing Arizona, Nevada, California, and the Bureau of Reclamation: "The first meeting of the group was devoted to discussing and agreeing upon the basic data and assumptions to be applied in the group studies, in order to provide a greater degree of comparability than was possible in some of the preliminary studies performed separately by the different parties. In all the studies discussed in detail herein the same basic data and assumptions were used. Therefore, results although not absolute owing to inherent limitations in this type of study and in the basic data and assumptions, are comparable and can be used to appraise the advantages and disadvantages of the various filling principles investigated." Sincerely yours, Ival V. Goblin, Chairman, Engineering Committee. |