University of Colorado Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Spring 1984

Home Browse Search

404 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55 be used for salinity control projects and for weather modification ex- perimentation," but has declined to authorize new starts for water projects that were to be funded from these power revenues. Salinity control projects illustrate the ambiguities of a new fed- eral regulatory mechanism, water quality controls. Language abounds that water quality regulation should not interfere with "the authority of each state to allocate quantities of water within its juris- diction," and that such allocations "shall not be superseded, abro- gated or otherwise impaired" by the "The Federal Water Pollution Control Act."87 Of course, the exercise of federal or state regulatory power over water quality does have an impact on the quantity of water available for allocation. Water quality controls on the Colorado River are an example. The Lower Basin wants water quality to remain approxi- mately the same as it is now. The Upper Basin states want to use water allocated under the Colorado River and Upper Colorado River compacts and have resisted regulations that would impose water quality standards. They have supported, and to date the federal gov- ernment has acquiesced in, a best efforts approach to reduce salinity. In addition, Upper Basin states and the federal government have agreed to construct salinity control projects financed by a combina- tion of Upper and Lower Basin power revenues 88 The Endangered Species Act has forced even more stark reali- ties on the development of water in Colorado. The whooping crane on the Platte River and the humpback chub, bonytail chub and squawfish on the Colorado River threaten to bring the development of new water on those rivers to a halt.88 Wild and Scenic River legislation could have the same result, but in practice, pending decisions have been carefully considered and reflect responsible trade-offs." The Environmental Impact Statement, the primary vehicle by 86. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act,43 U.S.C.S. §§ 1591-99 (1980);See 43 U.S.C.S. §§ 1511-1512 (Law Co-op 1980 & Supp. 1983) for references to plans and water augmentation projects. 87. 33 U.S.C.S. § 1251(g) (Law Co-op 1980). 88. 5 COLD. ADMIN. CODE §§ 1002-10. 89. See Riverside Irr.Dist.v.Andrews,586 F.Supp.583 (D.Colo. 1983);"Endangered Species and Development of the Upper Colorado River," Address by Getches, Southwestern Water Conservation District's Second Annual Water Use and Management Seminar (March 9, 1984). 90. For example, the proposal to designate the Cache La Poudre River as a wild and scenic river, with accompanying legislation, reflects extensive effort to accommodate diverse viewpoints. See S. 2580 and H.R. 5185, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984).