Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. SDarks: You have been following the dispute between the Congress <br />and the President at this time. The Congress takes the position, a <br />good many members at least, that when Congress enacts a law the <br />President has no right to refuse to carry it out. A major battle will <br />be fought in the Congress this year concerning the constitutional <br />authority of the President. We may be benefited or hurt ,as"a,result <br />of,that. ~,don't think the state of Arizona will desert us. We may <br />have to go to the Supreme Court to get an interpretation of that act. <br />The only way we thought that we could protect ourselves back in 1968 <br />was to get a concurrent construction provision. There is no question <br />as to what it means. So we may have to go into the Supreme court, <br />or into the federal courts at least, for an interpretation of that <br />act. I think it is very possible that we are talking about some court <br />action. Most certainly the state of Colorado should go to court if <br />the EPA insists upon unrealistic water quality standards. The Public <br />Health standard at the present time for drinking water is that it <br />should not exceed 500 parts per million. There is no evidence avail- <br />able that a thousand, or two thousand, or three thousand parts per <br />million has harmed any human being. If arbitrary, capricious standards <br />are to be without reasonable evidence, I think it is time that the <br />states test the standards in court. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: What is the justification, if any, between handling <br />the Arizona project and the Colorado projects in terms of the budget? <br />How do they justify continuing Arizona? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: There is no justification contained in the budget. The <br />only thing the budget recommends is that five hundred thousand dollars <br />be made available to study the salinity effect of the Colorado proj- <br />ects on the Colorado River. That five hundred thousand dollars is <br />not a new appropriation. It is money already appropriated to these <br />projects for definite plan reports. It was not appropriated for <br />salinity studies. However, the OMS without authority has directed <br />the Bureau of Reclamation to use definite plan money for salinity <br />studies. Obviously, the Arizona diversion will have some effect upon <br />salinity also, but that was not mentioned in the budget release. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeqer: Larry, it is my understanding that in the case of the <br />Southwestern, $300,000 of that $500,000 has to come out of this year's <br />appropriations. They have already started destaffing at the Durango <br />office. They are now going to find out what the adverse economic <br />impact of the projects is. We are really getting clobbered from every <br />direction. <br /> <br />-25- <br />