Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JUL-03-03 18,07 FROM,BALCOMB & GREEN PC <br />. . <br /> <br />10,8708458802 <br /> <br />Sixth, let me emphasize the relevance of the federal and state environmental <br />laws in this whole process. Over the past four or five years 110 and the other QSA <br />parries have struggled endlessly with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NEPA, the <br />Clean Air Act, and other laws in our efforts to bring the QSA to completion. We all <br />know by now that jf water use within liD is cut back there will be" a corresponding <br />" impact in the amount of water going to the Salton Sea. This impact, we are told by <br />state and federal wildlife agencies, requires consultation and mitigation under the ESA <br />because of the effect on listed species, and will require compliance with other laws in <br />regard to air quality and other matters. <br /> <br />Curiously, however, Interior is now on a path to cutback liD's water use by <br />probably several hundr~d thousand acre feet per year (via the 417 proceeding). but <br />Interior has done nothing in the direction of environmental compliance to support that <br />action. Now, this "course of action might be attributable to federal agency arrogance <br />and a notion that Interior simply does not need to pay attention to the environmental <br />laws. or Interior has cobbled together a legal argument as to why under these <br />circumstances it need not comply with these important federal laws. Whichever is the <br />case, 110 suggests that this subcommittee should investigate this issue carefully and <br />thoroughly. Maybe it goes without saying, but many interested parties are likely to <br />disagree with Interior on either point of justification, and therefore we can rest assured <br />that this action, too, will lead to protracted and confrontational litigation. That is not, we <br />suggest, the sensible and productive path to follow. <br /> <br />Finally, I would like to mention the unfortunate tension that we are experiencing <br />at this eleventh hour within the basin states. While most of the states have expressed <br />support. and even exceedingly strong support in some cases, for the need to place <br />emphasis on the "completion of the QSA while slowing down or stopping the 417 <br />proceeding, our neighbors in Colorado have expressed somewhat contrary views. I <br />think it is exceedingly important "to recognize the unique position of the State of <br />Colorado at this point in time: Colorado provides on average about 70% of the water in <br />the Colorado River; nevertheless, Colorado has a smaller apportionment than the <br />State of California; Colorado has been impacted significantly by the recent drought <br />while those of us below the giant reservoirs have had the blessing of carry-over <br />storage; and Colorad<;l is in the process of exploring the ways and means to fully <br />utilize its Colorado River apportionment. <br /> <br />The reasons that impact on a basin state's positions in any given situation can be <br />complex and sometimes parochial. Nevertheless, in recent years we have seen a new <br />paradigm of cooperation among the basin states, and an effort to coordinate to the <br />degree possible for the common good. ~n this situation we urge this subcommittee to <br />reach aut to the State of Colorado in an effort to fully understand its concerns and to <br />address those concerns to the degree possible. 110 firmly believes that the QSA is in <br />the best interest of the QSA parties, the State of California, and the other six other <br />basin states including Colorado. it would be exceedingly helpful to have Colorado lend <br />its ~upport to the successful completion of this process. <br /> <br />PAGE 24/34 <br /> <br />4 <br />