|
<br />
<br />~, . ~MUi::1J'S. ..
<br />th"JUly elected represe~tat~ves in the Se~a~e an"')!. e : a ,sion of the Central Valley Project. Condru. n of
<br />!,ssembly,the ~nal determinatIon of the policIes and pollt- . such diversion raises many problems including quedions
<br />Ical questIons Involved. . .. . as to acquisition of water rights and application of "county
<br />~ltho~9h surveys, studies, reports. recommendations and of origin" provisions.
<br />engineering plans are properly made by the experts, the
<br />material to be gathered together and collated by a newly
<br />formed Department of Water Resources under the direc-
<br />tion of en able administrator, staffed with competent water
<br />and prbject engineers, the final answers must always be
<br />made by the representatives of the people in the manner
<br />described.
<br />By 1945 the need for a comprehensive reappraisal of
<br />resources and plans was clearly apparent. In that year the
<br />legislature under the fine leadership of Senator Bradford
<br />Crittenden of San Joaquin County created the State
<br />Water Resources Board through the adoption of the State
<br />Water Resources Act (Stab. 1945, Chapter 1514) and
<br />empowered it to make a complete examination of State
<br />water resources. and to devise a comprehensive "Cali.
<br />forniaWater Plan." The work of this Board is now nearing
<br />completi.on and will probably be reported to the Califor-
<br />nia legislature at the 1955 session.
<br />
<br />IMPORTANT AND CONTROVERSIAL PROBLEMS
<br />Colorado River
<br />Continuous problems regarding California's rights in
<br />the water from the Colorado River arise. Since the Color-
<br />ado River is an interstate stream, its flow has been divided
<br />among. the seven states concerned-Arizona, Califo.rnia,
<br />Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming-
<br />by interstate compact. The compact was signed in Novem-
<br />ber of 1..922. In addition a treaty with Mexico [United
<br />States Treaty Senate No. 994: 59 Stats. 1219 (1945)1 re-
<br />serves to that country 1,500,000 acre-feet per year ~rom
<br />the Colorado River; .
<br />A great deal of litigation has arisen regarding the in.
<br />terpretation of the compact, most of it between Cali.
<br />fornia and Arizona. The controversy over definition of
<br />IIbeneficial consumptive use" of water, and surplus water,
<br />the method of figuring evaporation losses from lake Mead:
<br />and in particular, whether Arizona is to be charged for
<br />water from the Gila River, has continued for 32 years.
<br />A California is very much concerned also about such Fed-
<br />eral proposals as the recently defeated Frying Pan.Arkan.
<br />'1 sas Project, which would result in a diversion of Colorado
<br />. River to states other than Arizona and California.
<br />
<br />INTERSTATE PROBLEMS WITH NEVADA,
<br />ARIZONA, AND OREGON
<br />Litigation is now in progress concerning water righft in
<br />the Carson River and Little Cherokee River streams flow.
<br />ing from .California into Nevada. A commission was ap..
<br />pointed by the 1953 legislature to negotiate a compact
<br />with Oregon regarding the waters of the Klamath River.
<br />
<br />TRINITY RIVER
<br />The Trinity River Diversion has been approved admin.
<br />istratively by the United States Bureau of Reclamation as
<br />
<br />6
<br />
<br />SACRAMENTO RIVER SALT WATER
<br />BARRIER REBER PLAN
<br />John Reber and others have urged for many years that
<br />a salt water barrier across San Francisco Bay be operated
<br />in conjunction with the Central Valley Project, at a great
<br />saving of fresh. water. The proposal raises problems such
<br />as interferenc~ with flood controll navigation. national
<br />defense, availibility of water and possible flooding of delta
<br />lands.
<br />
<br />SEA WATER CONVERSION, CLOUD SEEDING,
<br />AND RECLAMATION OF SEWAGE AND
<br />WASTE WATER
<br />Sea water conversion. and reclamation of sewage and
<br />waste waters are practical from an engineering standpoint
<br />and using known methods. At present salt water conver-
<br />sion is economically unfeasible although reclaiming sea
<br />water should be explored to the fullest as a distant future
<br />source of supply. The economic practicality of reclamation
<br />of sewage, and the practical value of cloud seeding are
<br />now under consideration.
<br />Among other problems that must be solved are the
<br />Kings' River Controversy, State acquisition of Central
<br />Valley Project, allocation of waters of the Tia Juana River,
<br />Feather River Project, recharging depleted underground
<br />basins. finance. water pollution.
<br />The mere recital of all of the above problems
<br />and projects stresses again that there are many
<br />decisions to be made and a great deal of work
<br />ahead. By.simply listing the possibilities for future
<br />sources of supply, possibilities for reclamation of
<br />water and without at this time giving a priority to
<br />any of them, shows how desperately Calfornia is
<br />in need of giving cabinet status to water and how
<br />very important it is to at least make a start by
<br />firsf"puffing our administrative machinery in order
<br />so one by one these problems can be presented to
<br />Itle various official agencies charged with the re-
<br />sponsibility to consider them, and recommend
<br />priorities and methods of financing them to the
<br />Legislature.
<br />
<br />WHAT LAW CONTROLS
<br />It is important to note that in general the dates are
<br />free to adopt whatever legal policies they find appropriate
<br />to their local conditions. As was dated in the case of
<br />Peabody v. City of Vallelo. 2 Cal. 2d 351 at 365 (1935):
<br />liThe oHltude of the Supreme Court of the United Statl!i:l
<br />has been con.l.tent In leaving the que.tion of private
<br />water right., which do not Involve federal or interstate
<br />Intere.t, to the co"trol of local .tat. pollcle.. (U"lted Stotes
<br />Y. R.lo Grand. Dam and 11'''. Co., 174 U.S. 690 702 [19 Sup.
<br />Ct. 770, 43 L. Ed. 1136], Hudson County Woter Co. Y. Me-
<br />. Corte'"209 U.S. 349,356 [28 Sup. Ct. 529, 52 L. Ed. 828, 14
<br />
<br />7
<br />
|