WSP08754

• File Number: 8210.110.60
• Description: Colorado River Water Users Association
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 12/12/1968
• Author: CRWUA
• Title: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

LET'S LOOK AT BIGIRED
KEYNOTE ADDRESS:
BV MYRON B, HOLBURT, Chief Engineer
Colorado River Board of Cal~fornia

,
We are now entering into a new era of water mana~ement on the Big Red, the Colorado River,
with the Colorado River Basin Project Act (P. 1. 90-537)1 culminating the efforts of Southwest water
leaders to develop workable water development projects in the Colorado River Basin, assuring the
rights of existing projects and areas of origin, and commer\Cing studies that will eventually lead to new
water in the river. Thoughtful water leaders in the Basir\ recognize, however, that even though this
landmark bill does solve some problems, it does not resolye all of the problems and it has created new
ones.

Still awaiting resolution in the near future are the major issues which I will briefly describe

here:

1. MEXICAN WATER TREATY :OBLIGATION

P. 1. 90-537 provided that satisfaction of the Me~ican Water Treaty would be the first obliga-
tion of any water augmentation project. However, until $uch a project is in operation, the obligation
remains that of the states. The Colorado River Compact provides that the treaty obligation is supplied
first from any surplus waters above the quantities apportioned to the states and if this is insufficient,
any deficiency shall be borne equally by the Upper Basin and Lower Basin, with the States of the
Upper Division required to deliver one half of the deficIency at Lee Ferry,

The Colorado River Compact has never been interpreted in court. Representatives of the Upper
Basin have interpreted the Compact in such a manner that their Mexican Treaty obligation is zero.
Lower Basin representatives compute the Upper Basin Ifreaty obligation at approximately 900,000
acre-feet per year. :

2. MEAD-POWELL OPERATING CRITERIA fiND ITS RELATION TO THE 1962 GLEN
CANYON FILLING CRITERIA '

The secretary of the Interior and the states will have to mutually develop operating criteria
for the Upper and Lower Basins reservoirs that will comply with the priorities specified in p, 1.
90-537, including meeting the obligations specified in the Colorado River Compact, Of course, this
necessitates evaluation of the probabilities of the water isupplies available in the Colorado River. The
Secretary is to submit the criteria to the states by January I, 1970, and after receipt of their com-
ments adopt criteria by July I, 1970. i
I
In addition, both the Senate Committee report ~n S. 1004 and the House Committee report
on H, R, 3300 state that the finally adopted operating criteria would be consistent with the Glen Can-
yon filling criteria and that the filling criteria would con~inue until terminated at a later date,

3. SETTING OF SALINITY STANDARDS IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
,
,
In January 1967 the Colorado River Basin state$ agreed upon guidelines for formulating water
standards for the Colorado River System, At that time the states agreed to defer a decision on the
most important water quality issue: the setting of qua~titative salinity standards. In January, 1968,
the Secretary of the Interior concurred with the states Ithat the setting of salipity standards should be
deferred until additional factual information becomes ~vailable. The primary information which is a-
waited by the states and federal agencies is the repo~t by the Colorado River Basin Water Quality
Control Project of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. This report is expected in the
near future, The best way to solve the salinity problem is by adding substantial quantities of low salin-
ity water to the river. Other helpful possibilities are control of point sources of salinity, better selection
of lands for irrigation and better irrigation methods. '

In the Lower Basin, the Colorado River is alre~dy burdened with a heavy content of dissolved
minerals. Increased water uses in the Upper Basin will result in substantial increases in mineral content
in the water being delivered to California, Arizona, an,t! Nevada users. The Lower Basin wants water
with the lowest possible salinity values. To the Upper !Basin states, salinity standards pose the threat
of limiting development in the Upper Basin. The stateS and the federal government will have to coop-
eratively arrive at a set of standards that are acceptable to all parties,

,

-40-