Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />May 11-12, 1998 <br />Agenda Item 26j <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br />2. Present the most cost-effective option in an implementation plan and obtain and/or issue all <br />necessary environmental compliance documents and permits within I year. Judicial review of <br />agency environmental compliance and permit decisions is curtailed. <br />3. Negotiate cost-sharing arrangements and proceed to construction on the preferred option <br />using up to $300 million in non-reimbursable federal funds. <br />4. Conduct other studies related to wildlife resources and irrigation drainage at $7 million. <br />5. Initiate emergency actions to immediately pump high salinity water out of the Salton Sea in <br />anticipation ofa refill using "water available as a result of high flows in late 1998 and early <br />1999." <br /> <br />S. 1716 relaxes some of the time frames by about 6 months, contains no directive to pump out the <br />Sea, slightly increases funding for the studies, and does not limit judicial review of environmental <br />compliance activities. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Remediation of salinity and stabilization of water surface elevations as envisioned by the Bills and <br />the authorization ofinunediate pumpout of the Salton Sea raise serious concerns over the Law of the <br />River and efforts to get Califomia's water use down to Compact authorized levels. While both Bills <br />contain language recognizing and respecting the Law of the River, there appears to be an implied <br />expectation that the Colorado River can and will provide the necessary water to freshen and maintain <br />surface water levels. How this new use in California fits with efforts to develop and implement a <br />plan to get California to live within its 4.4 MAF allocation is of concern to all Basin States. <br />Furthermore, the use of Colorado River water simply to reduce salinity in the Salton Sea is contrary <br />to the Law ofthe River. <br /> <br />In addition to concerns over additional uses of Colorado River water in Califomia, H.R 3267 <br />presents other potential concerns: <br />- The federal price tag of $330 million would presumably come out of the U.S. Bureau of <br />Reclamation's [USBR] budget, and may, under current Congressional budget procedures, force <br />USBR to cut back or eliminate other existing programs on which Colorado and the other Basin <br />States rely. <br />- The restrictions on judicial review and forcing an expedited time line for plan development <br />and environmental compliance proposed in H.R 3267 are of concern because adequate <br />consideration of impacts on other environmental and resource issues such as endangered species <br />and critical habitat may not occur, and consistency with the Law of the River, perhaps, could not <br />be challenged. <br />- Fixed legislative objectives for water surface elevation and salinity levels may preclude <br />development of reasonable and cost-effective alternatives, which might be more in balance with <br />other competing resource needs. <br />