|
efficiency of water use by the hundreds of water districts it
<br />serves. The act requires such districts to prepare water-
<br />conservation plans. While the statute gave the districts
<br />considerable flexibility, all plans are to contain "definite
<br />goals," "appropriate measures," and "time schedules" for
<br />compliance.
<br />Unfortunately, the Bureau's handling of its conservation
<br />mission has been a keen disappointment. The National
<br />Wildlife Federation reviewed A representative sample of the
<br />water-conservation plans submitted and found two,
<br />perhaps three, out of 45 reviewed that could reasonably be
<br />said to meet the bare requirements of the RRA. The rest
<br />were in varying stages of non-compliance, ranging from
<br />earnest but flawed efforts down to curt, off-the-cuff
<br />statements about as long as a business letter. The RRA sets
<br />out criteria for conservation plans, but the Bureau, by
<br />accepting plans that patently fail to meet these criteria, has
<br />failed to enforce the law for a decade.
<br />New Legislative Initiatives
<br />The 102nd Congress has considered several pieces of
<br />legislation relating to water conservation. Some are rela-
<br />tively modest improvements over current law and practice,
<br />while others are unprecedented in their scope and poten-
<br />tial.
<br />The Central Utah Project Completion Act was introduced
<br />by the Utah Congressional delegation to increase the
<br />amount of funding available for the giant Colorado River
<br />Storage Project in order to allow completion of the $2
<br />billion Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project (C.U.P.).
<br />Intensive negotiations among environmentalists, water
<br />users, and the Utah Congressional delegation resulted in
<br />legislation that was approved by both Houses in the 101st
<br />Congress, although final enactment was prevented by lack
<br />of agreement on other portions of the bill unrelated to
<br />C.U.P.
<br />Included in the bill is the establishment of a Utah
<br />Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer
<br />fish and wildlife funds and develop mitigation plans, with
<br />specific language directing acquisition of wetlands, mini-
<br />mum instream flows, rangeland improvement, and other
<br />mitigation. Other provisions include cost-sharing and
<br />environmental-protection requirements for any additional
<br />irrigation development, the establishment of a state-
<br />managed wildlife refuge along Utah Lake, and a settlement
<br />of Ute Indian water-rights claims.
<br />The bill also includes a comprehensive water-conserva-
<br />tion program requiring the implementation of several best
<br />management practices and pricing policies to save water. A
<br />nine-member Utah Water Conservation Advisory Board
<br />must recommend specific standards and regulations on
<br />each of nine subjects, including water metering, water-
<br />conserving plumbing standards, and elimination of once-
<br />through cooling in certain refrigeration equipment. These
<br />standards are to be promulgated throughout the service
<br />area of each water agency receiving water from the C.U.P.
<br />by Jan. 1, 1997.
<br />The bill also requires the project's local sponsor, the
<br />Central Utah, Water Conservancy District, to establish a
<br />continuous program for making cost-effective investments
<br />in water conservation. The district's planning process must
<br />be established by 1994, and the first plan must be submit-
<br />ted to the Secretary of the Interior by 1995. The plan must
<br />include a specific conservation goal, an inventory and
<br />evaluation of a wide range of conservation measures, a
<br />timetable for implementation, and an evaluation of com-
<br />pleted measures. The minimum goal for the plan is a
<br />savings of 30,000 acre feet per year. This goal must be half-
<br />way achieved within seven years and fully achieved within
<br />15 years. If the district fails to submit a plan or to achieve
<br />the goals of the program, it is subject to a substantial
<br />surcharge on its payments to the federal government for
<br />Central Utah Project water.
<br />The text is now included in H.R. 429, the Reclamation
<br />Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act, now pending
<br />in a House-Senate conference committee.
<br />The Central Valley Project Reform Act is legislation
<br />similar to the California Fish and Wildlife Protection Act,
<br />which came close to House passage in the 101st Congress.
<br />It calls upon the Secretary of the interior to preserve,
<br />protect, enhance, and restore fish and wildlife and their
<br />habitat, which has been destroyed and depleted by the
<br />Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley Project (CVP) in
<br />California. The legislation requires the project to be
<br />operated to meet specific fishery-restoration goals and to
<br />improve wildlife habitat. A programmatic environmental-
<br />impact statement would be required on CVP water-contract
<br />renewals. Activities for the restoration of anadromous fish
<br />and the improvement of migratory-waterfowl habitat would
<br />be funded, in part, by revenues from a surcharge on project
<br />water and power sales. Water-conservation measures
<br />include a tiered pricing formula for all new or amended
<br />CVP contracts, metering of water deliveries within agricul-
<br />tural districts, and authorization for the Secretary of the
<br />Interior to cooperatively implement water-conservation
<br />measures, in return for a share of saved water to be devoted
<br />to fish and wildlife purposes.
<br />In November, 1991, additional bills, supported by
<br />irrigation interests, were introduced in both houses, S.
<br />2016 by Sen. John Seymour (R-CA) and H.R. 3876 by Rep.
<br />Cal Dooley (D-CA). Energy Committee Chairman J.
<br />Bennett Johnston (D-LA) also released a strong CVP reform
<br />12
|