WSP10764 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to If) 0) ~ against the Hoover deficiency payments by '-:, the Upper Basin states. On October 1, 1969, o the Upper Colorado River Commission adopted a resolution requesting the Secre- tary of the Interior to discontinue the Hoov- er deficiency payments made from the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. The Commission asked that this action be effec- tive July 1, 1970, when the Operating Cri- teria is slated to be effective. The Upper Basin States submitted their arguments on termination of the Filling Cri- teria to the federal-state taskforce in Novem- ber 1969. Their arguments were primarily based on assertions that deficiency payments under the Glen Canyon Filling Criteria are incompatible with Section 602 of P.L. 90-537 and that reservoirs can not be operated in accordance with both the proposed Operat- ing Criteria and the Filling Criteria. Cali- fornia, Arizona, and Nevada presented strong arguments against these assertions and the premature termination, of the Filling Criteria. River Management Program and Environmental Factors Channelization and phreatophyte eradica- tion have become, in recent years, the most controversial elements of the Lower Colora- do River Management Program of the Bu- reau of Reclamation. This situation has deve- loped as the Program evolved from a limited-purpose to a multipurpose program. In the Program's inception, the objectives were limited to the prevention of flooding and of destruction of land and improvements caused by meandering and sediment deposi- tion. As the work progressed, increasing wa- ter supply demands on the river, coupled with a number of years of low flows, caused water salvage aspects ofthe Program to gain in importance. In the past several years, pres- ervation of fish and wildlife and recreational values has become an important part of the Program. Authority for the Program stems from the 1927 Colorado River Front Work and Levee System Act and the 1940, 1946, and 1958 amendments. Phreatophyte Control and Ground Water Recovery portions of the Pro- gram were given added impetus by Section 306 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, P.L. 90-537. Section 306 states: The Secretary shall undertake programs for water salvage and ground water recovery along and adjacent to the main stream of the Colorado River. Such programs shall be consistent with maintenance of a reasonable degree of undis- turbed habitat for fish and wildlife in the area, as determined by the Secretary. The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that 254,000 acre-feet per year can be sal- vaged by channelization and 100,000 acre- feet per year by phreatophyte eradication, for a total of 354,000 acre-feet. As of June 30, 1969, the Bureau of Reclamation estimated that approximately 90,000 acre-feet per year has been salvaged by channelization work al- ready completed. No phreatophyte eradica- tion work has been accomplished yet under this Program. Total costs for river management work, excluding Imperial and Limitrophe Divi- sions, may approach $52 million, with 22 per- cent planned for fish and wildlife and 3 per- cent for recreation. Approximately half of the total Program costs had been spent as of June 30,1969, although proportions spent for fish and wildlife were less than the propor- tion that will be spent for those purposes upon completion. Task Force. In order to develop State policy on the management program, on June 27, 1969, Secretary for Resources Norman B. Livermore, Jr., established a task force com- posed of W. Don Maughan from the Depart- ment of Water Resources, Chester M. Hart from the Department of Fish and Game, and Myron B. Holburt from the Colorado River Board. This task force was charged with re- sponsibility for recommending a State policy on the Lower Colorado River Management Program. David B. Stanton, Deputy Attor- ney General, was asked to participate and assist in the study. This task force held meetings with rep- resentatives of federal, state, and local agen- 33 " ""I ~