Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., 32~ <br />'. . <br />t.. .;.. <br /> <br />REGIONAL WATER AND POWER DEVELOP11ENT <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br /> <br />The \~estern States Water Council (\'1SWC) was established by the <br />Western Governor's Conference in 1964 and 1965 to promote effective <br />cooperation among the eleven (now twelve) \lestern states in the <br />integrated development of their \-later resources. California's Council <br />delegates in 1978 Here Ronald B. Robie, Director of the Department of <br />Water Resources, W. Don I~aughan, Vice Chainnan of the State \Jater <br />Resources Control Board and nuben Ayala, State Senator, 32nd District,' <br />"Iho Has appointed in r,larch 1978. The Board's Chief Engineer continued <br />to serve as an advisor to the California delegation. <br /> <br />The Council, in response to a resolution of the Western Governor's <br />Conference, admitted the State of Texas to the Council upon conclusion <br />of satisfactory financial arrangements and changes in the Council bylaws. <br />Texas had been sending observers to the Council meetings for several <br />years. <br /> <br />During 1978, the Council adopted the follQ1'ling resolutions of <br />interest to the Board: <br /> <br />1. Requesting the President of the United States and the Secretary <br />of the Interior to direct that federal officials (1) cooperate Inth the <br />states in implementation of the Supreme Court case California v. United <br />States, (2) ensure that federal reclamation projects operate according <br />to state vTater rights laHs, and (J) recognize the primary role of states <br />in allocation of the water resources \'Iithin their respective ,jurisdicCio1.1s. <br /> <br />2. Concerning EPA's proposed rule-making under the Clean Water <br />Act regarding state adoption of stream flo\'l and quantity allocation <br />prohibitions, stating that it is the position of the WSWC that neither <br />the EPA nor the U.S. Corps of Engineers may "encourage State adoption <br />of stream floH and ~uantity allocation prohibitions" if such encourage- <br />ment or other action by such federal agencies denotes an assumption <br />of authority by them \'Ihich is in any \'lay inconsistent \'lith the plain <br />language of Sections 101(g) and 510 of tlle Clean ~Iatet' Act. ' <br /> <br />r, SupportinG the principles set forth in the legislation drafted <br />and sponsored by the Fa~'1ater Alliance and introduced in the 95th <br />Session of ConGress as S. 2C13, opposine the 160-acre limitation on <br />\'later deliveries from federal reclamation projec ~s, and supporting the <br />repeal of residency re~uirements. <br /> <br />4. Concerning issuance of penlits under Section 404 of the Clean <br />Water Act mld Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of lC99 opposing <br />the position of >che Fisll and \1ildlife Service and the National r:Iarine <br />Fisheries Service as being contrary to the expressed policies of the <br />Clean Water Act of 1977, ml intrusion into recognized state responsi- <br />bility, and inconsistent Hith the federal \'later policies announced by <br />the President to not interfere ~Iith the '.later rights systems of the <br />vIestern states. <br /> <br />- 14 - <br />