University of Colorado Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Spring 1984

• Description: Plans and Studies: The Recent Quest for a Utopia in the Utilization of Colorado's Water Resources
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Other

1984] COLORADO'S WATER RESOURCES 401
advances including, but not limited to, desalting, weather
modification, and waste water purification and reuse; [and]
. . . consider economic and social consequences of water re-
source development, including, for example, the impact of
• water resource development on regional economic growth, on
institutional arrangements, and on esthetic values affecting
the quality of life of the American People. . . .85
The House and Senate approved the National Water Commis-
sion Act and the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 on the
same day.88 Read together the two Acts told of the close of an era of
development and the beginning of a decade of review and reexami-
nation of water policies at the federal level.
Days later in 1968, Congress approved the Wild and Scenic
River Act.87 Within a few years, Congress also enacted the 1970
National Environmental Policy Act88 and the Federal Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972.89 In 1972, the Nixon administration
refused to spend federal funds on water treatment facilities.70 These
actions were followed by the passage of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973,71 the federal Land Policy and Management Act of 197672
and the emergence of Carter's water project "hit list."78
Thus, not only had the greatest source of funds for water devel-
opment — the federal government — dried up, but new regulatory
restraints on traditional water development had been imposed. The
bulldozer was too big; man was no longer struggling to stay even
with-nature. He was overwhelming it. Our water was too dirty, our
air too polluted, our natural and beloved scenic wonders and places
for recreation were in danger. These changes did not, and could not,
escape our state policy makers.
65. National Water Comm'n Act, Pub. L. No. 90-515, § 3(a), 82 Stat. 868 (1968).
66. See Publ. L.No.90-515, 1968 U.S.CODE CONG. &AD. Naves, 3602;Pub. L.No.
90-357, 1968 U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 3666. The study was first part of and then
paralled the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968,because it was a way to ameliorate the
impact of prohibitions on diversion out of the Columbia River.
67. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287(1978 &Supp. 1983);See 1968 U.S.CODE CONG. &AD.
NEWS 3801.
68. 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4370 (1980 & Supp. 1983).
69. 33 U.S.C. § 1251-1376 (1980 & Supp. 1983).
70. See Train v. City of New York,420 U.S. 35 (1975) (court held that withholding of
funds improper under statute).
71. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543 (1980 & Supp. 1983).
72. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1784 (1980 & Supp. 1983).
73. The hit list drama extended over many months, beginning in December, 1976,just
before President Carter was sworn in.See 1977 Colo. Sess. Laws 1971.