Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l\:) <br />I-'- <br />-.J <br />o <br /> <br />Arizona's Growth - Eldridge p. 6 <br /> <br />Nebraska action interfered with interstate commerce. The positive side of <br />the decision, from the point of view of a state that wants to prevent exporta- <br />tion of state waters, is that it hinged rather exclusively on the reciprocity <br />issue, and appears to leave open other ways for states to restrict the move- <br />ment of water across their borders. The down side is that the Court found <br />ground water to be an article of interstate conrnerce, and that restrictions <br />on its trade are subject to what lawyers call the "strict scrutiny" test for <br />constitutionality. Many states have taken the viewpoint that water does not <br />fall under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but they will have to <br />anticipate in coming decades, because of the Sporhase decision, that trade in <br />state waters is at least in part subject to all the rules governing interstate <br />commerce. We now await a decision on whether New Mexico can prevent the city <br />of El Paso, Texas from buying land in New Mexico, thereby acquiring groundwater <br />rights, sinking wells, and pumping New Mexico water across the state line for <br />use in Texas. There also may be some interesting decisions with regard to the <br />many interstate slurry pipelines now being developed in the West. We will look <br />to Nancy Laney, who is on the Executive Board of this Commission, for analysis <br />of the legal implications of this possibly landmark case. She is now preparing <br />a law review article on the Sporhase decision. <br /> <br />5. We don't know what the formula will be for the distribution of Hoover <br />Dam revenues after 1987. The money brought in by the power generated by Hoover <br />Dam will haye paid for costs of construction by 1987. Power generation will of <br />course continue, as will the large revenues. Will the Bureau of Reclamation get <br />it all, or are the states whose water is being used to generate the power and <br />the money get some of it? What should Arizona's share of the revenues be? Should <br />there be specified uses for the new income, such as salinity control, for example? <br /> <br />6. How are we going to achieve greater cost-sharing from water users to pay <br />for more water projects in the West? This question came up under item 2 with <br />respect to desalinization projects. As we address the parallel question of new <br />water developments, we find that the federal government is insisting that the <br />states and project beneficiaries carry as much as a third of the costs of new <br />projects. Payback formulas are already legally in place for most of the dams <br />and distribution systems now in use and they can't be dickered with. But what <br />about the future? Very large population growth is anticipated in the Southwest <br />and that could mean that more water developments will be necessary. With front <br />end costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars, how will we pay for them? <br /> <br />':.: <br /> <br />,,~ <br /> <br />.J.'__:'__,","___ _,,-, <br /> <br />, <br />" <br />_t <br /> <br /> <br />