Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. G '. ~ <br />''!' , ~ '1 <br />If.' , <br />STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOU~ES AGENCY <br /> <br />EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor <br /> <br />COLORADO RIVER BOARD Of CALIfORNIA <br />107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 8103 <br />LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 <br />(213) 620-4480 <br /> <br />Q <br /> <br />August 1, 1977 <br /> <br />Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr. <br />Governor of California <br />State Capitol <br />Sacramento, California 95814 <br /> <br />Dear Governor Brown: <br /> <br />We are pleased to present to you and the Legislature the Colorado River Board's <br />Annual Report for Calendar Year 1976. <br /> <br />During 1976, the Board continued its efforts to prevent the threatened increase in <br />salinity of the river by working for: (1) federal salinity control measures, and (2) basin <br />wide salinity standards. <br /> <br />Significant progress occurred, with construction funds appropriated in the 1976-77 <br />fiscal year federal budget for three of the salinity control projects authorized by the <br />1977 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. Also, the water quality control agencies <br />in all seven states have approved uniform Colorado River salinity standards, consisting of <br />numeric criteria and a plan of implementation. The Environmental Protection Agency formally <br />approved the standards in November 1976. <br /> <br />The Board's staff continued to work with the Attorney General's office, Arizona, <br />Nevada, and the California parties to the Arizona v. California litigation to settle the <br />issue of present perfected rights. After protracted negotiations, a new draft stipulation, <br />agreed to by the above parties and believed to satisfy all of the United States' demands, <br />was submitted in July 1976. However, the United States added new demands as a condition <br />for approval of the stipulation which were unacceptable to the other parties and negotia- <br />tions were terminated by the end of 1976. Earlier this year, the non-federal parties <br />requested the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and wrote to the Secretary of the Interior <br />offering to meet to see if the issue could be settled without litigation. <br /> <br />The estimated virgin flow of the Colorado River during the 1975-76 water year was <br />82 percent of the long-term average. Toward the end of calendar year 1976, available data <br />and forecasts indicated that runoff for the 1976-77 water year would again be less than <br />normal. However, with the tremendous carry-over storage existing in the Colorado River <br />Basin reserVOirs, there will be no reductions in deliveries of Colorado River water to <br />California users. With the northern and central portions of California facing still <br />another dry year, the Colorado River supply to Southern California takes on even more <br />important role as a major source of imported water. <br /> <br />The above activities, and other pertinent actions, are described in more detail in <br />this report and in a separate supplemental appendix. <br /> <br />Sincerely yours, <br /> <br />-?~ {?~ <br /> <br />Patricia C. Nagle, Chairman <br />and Colorado River Commissioner <br />