WSP09412 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ~. I~. I. 1";';';' , Although the report did not recognize es- tablishment of the LCRCG, it did not recog- nize the Colorado River as being an interstate and international waterway subject to fed- eral control. The LCRCG's 1970 report "State Policy on the Lower Colorado River Management Program and Associated Envi- ronmental Factors," as well as formation of the LCRCG are consistent with recommen- dations of the report, even though both were accomplished prior to the final protected wa- terways plan report. I: ~ Proposed Recreationc", Developments During 1971, federal and local agencies proposed the development of certain recrea. tional areas along the Colorado River. These proposals required the preparation of envi. ronmental impact statements which were reo viewed by the Colorado River Board and other state agencies. The Bureau of Land Management pre- pared a plan of proposed improvements for Kinder's Camp, located on the California side of the Parker Strip area along the Colo- rado River north of Earp, and sent a copy of the Environmental Impact Analysis report to California's Resources Agency for review, The report indicated that there would be no increase in consumptive water use caused by the proposed recreational development. The Board's staff, however, concluded there would be an increase in consumptive use due to the development and commented that a need to obtain water rights for new con- sumptive uses should be recognized in the report. The Bureau of Land Management also pre- pared a plan for developing a 13-acre site for public outdoor recreation at Empire Land- ing, located about 2 miles north of Kinder's Camp, The Board's staff reviewed the "Envi. ronmental Analysis" and submitted com- ments through the Resources Agency stating that this report also failed to recognize the need for obtaining rights for new water uses. The County of Riverside Parks Depart- ment applied to the Corps of Engineers for a \ permit to excavate a swimming and boating lagoon adjacent to the Colorado River at Mayflower Park. Since the result of the exca- vation would be to increase the evaporation losses from the River, all three Lower Basin States would have to share in the increased consumptive use, In the past the Colorado River Board has insisted that developments in Arizona and Nevada which increase con- sumptive use on the River be charged to the state in which development takes place. In a letter dated December 16, 1971, to the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of Arizona objected to the proposed allocation of increased losses and cited a Bureau of Reclamation criteria which states: "Approval of plans will not be extended to devel- opments which involve tbe consumptive use of wa- ter from the Colorado River unless a legal entitlement to such use of water is shown on the application." In preparation of comments to the Resources Agency on the Corps of Engineers permit, the Colorado River Board commented that it would have no objection to the proposed de- velopment if necessary arrangements are completed, in a manner consistent with the California Seven-Party Agreement of 1931, for an allocation of water for the evaporation and loss requirements of the lagoon. The matter was still pending at the close of 1971. The Colorado River Indian Tribes proposed the Lower Moovalya Recreational Development, located just upstream from Headgate Rock Dam on the California side of the River. The Bureau of Reclamation pro- poses to assist the Indians in their develop- ment by dredging a Kilo Race Course for high speed boats and to use the dredged materials to fill and level the marshy land on the California side of Lake Moovalya. A net reduction of about 640 acre-feet per year of water uses in the area would result from this development, Because of the environmental impact of the proposed development on the - area, the project was selected by the LCRMPCC for special consideration in the problem of mitigation of fish and wildlife losses on Indian lands, 37