Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ . <br />"-. <br /> <br />Pot:Uic LAw Journal/Vol. 19 <br /> <br />1'M8 / Califomlll Colorado Riwr {s:rues <br /> <br />. h 'n the Law or the River. but it would require much <br />comltaot c anacs I . . t <br />carerul thousht and lengthy nClotialions. These prerequullel are DO <br />in t\.'idcnce )'ct. <br /> <br />The Federal end Slale governments have done much to try to <br />reduce the salinity in the River. which wiD redound to the benefit of <br />.n.m Indeed, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1914 <br />is a massive Federal authorizalion rOf construclin. and operatinl <br />salinity control measures throuahout the enlire Colorado River 8a. <br />sin.ltl As with all Federal pros'ams. howe....er. rundin, requires <br />constant vlli111nce by the Stale!. The concern of the Stales is thaC if <br />the salinity is not controlled to meet the Blrced standards. the Stales <br />and en'ities wi.hin each Slate may well have (0 take aclion to meet <br />these standards. II has been suggested that this supply might come <br />from imposed conservation measures on Lower Basin agriculture."t <br />or that Ihe Federal Government has a call on all the unappropriated <br />water in the Upper Basin as of the Treaty date for meeting the <br />supply oblil!,ation.'" Weather modification and vegetation manage. <br />menl to increase water supplies are other solutions that have been <br />suggested. The point is that despite the obvious federal jurisdiction <br />and obligation, the lolution may well seriously affect state Colorado <br />River allocations. <br /> <br />VII. CONCLUSION <br /> <br />The aUlhor has auempled to set forth here. with it is hoped some <br />objecti\'jty, the major problems facing Colorado RiVeT waler users, <br />with an emphasis on the crrea of these problems on California. II <br />is obvious that most of these problems Item (rom the over-appro. <br />priation of Ihis jpterstate water supply. II is easy to say that wilh <br />increasing urban demands for water. particularly in the lower Basin. I' <br />we should change the Law of Ihe' River. This could be done if <br />everyone asreed, but in each of the :proposals examined here, some \ <br />pany is adversely arrected. In the GaUoway proposal, Colorado, or I <br />either Arizona or Metropolitan would 'be hun. The sale of Imperial's ~ <br />water oUlside it! boundaries would adversely afCccl Metropolitan and ~ <br />Coachella, and so on .as you look al each idea. There can be · J <br />voluntary rcalJocalion or Colorado River waler supplies with con. <br /> <br />,-' <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />171. ~ EII.;ronmenlal ~fenlt Fund .. COllIe. 651 F.2d :115, 210-0 (D.C. elr. 19m <br />(for a dQCriPlion of IheloC' eHorli). <br />I7J. The- Colorado Rlytr anin s.Jinilr Connor An of 1914, II SUI. 266 (1974): (cocIincd <br />II .....mded II oil U.S.C. , 1571 (1912 .. Supp. III 19S'l). <br />174. ~ GC'1da, SIlpn nole 16, II 61. <br />175. Oyde-, l1Utltlll,olffll RtlpoIIJI '0 l'roIo",- DrT1II,lu. In Hlw Covua _ 1"Id <br />COLOII..UtO RlYu. III,. dole '. II 10', 121. <br /> <br />1432 <br /> <br />. I <br /> <br />1433 <br />