Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In a previous article we began to examine the interrelationship <br />etween water quality and water quantity in a semi-arid prior appro- <br />riation state, utilizing Colorado as an example. I The integration of <br />ater rights law and water quality law is ripe for a principled synthesis <br />. guide administrative and judicial decision making. This synthesis is <br />:curring through an evolving body of statutory law adopted by the <br />'nited States Congress and state legislatures. Prior appropriation <br />ates like Colorado are attempting to refine the interface between <br />~antity and quality in a manner calculated to preserve th~ir water <br />location systems while meeting the challenge of federal law to pro- <br />ct the environment. <br />With regard to state water planning, Colorado and other western <br />ates have been enduring what Monte Pascoe has described as a <br />:oyal melancholy'" brought on by the withdrawal of federal funds <br />Ir water projects and the imposition of extensive federal environmen- <br />I protection statutes, the most significant being the Clean Water <br />ct,3 the Endangered Species Act,4 the Federal Land Policy and Man- <br />:ement Act,' and the National Environmental Policy Act.6 Because <br />ler one-third of Colorado and an even greater percentage of other <br />estern states is owned and administered by the federal government,' <br />ld because no significant water project on federal or nonfederallands <br /> <br />1. Hobbs & Raley, Water Quality Versus Water Quantity: A Delicate Balance, 34 ROCKY MTN. <br />N. L. INST. ~ 24 (1988). <br />2. Pascoe, Plans and Studies: The Recent Quest For a Utopia in the Utilization of CoJorodo's <br />Iter Resources, 55 U. COLO. L. REV. 391 (1983"84). Basinwide and statewide water plans continue <br />be sought, despite the lack of consensus about who should prepare and enforce them and how Colo- <br />la's constitutional guarantee of the right to divert unappropriated water will be implemented under <br />:h plans. See Getches, Water Planning: UnUJpped Opportunity for the .western States, 9 J. ENERGY <br />& POL'V I (1988); Wilkinson. Aldo Leopold and Western Water Law: Thinking Perpendicular to the <br />or Appropriation Doctrine. 24 LAND & WATER L. REV. 1 (1989). <br />3. 33 u.s.c. 99 1251-1387 (1982 & Supp. IV 1987); Riverside Irrigation Dist. Y. Andrews, 758 <br />id 508, 514 (10th Cir. 1985) (Clean Water Act section 404 pennits, endangered species). <br />, 4. 16 U.S.c. ii 1531-1543 (I982). <br />5. 43 U.S.c. ~9 1701-1784 (1982); City & County of Denver v. Bergland, 695 F.2d 465, 480 (10th <br />~ 1982) (rights-of-way across federal land). <br />6. 42 U.S.c. 9~ 4321-4370 (1982). Procedurally, the National Environmental Policy Act <br />EP A) has brought about huge changes in water project planning, design, construction, and operation <br />inserting federal agencies and the public at large into all significant phases of the permitting and <br />,roval process. NEPA is a procedural act that requires federal agencies to measure the environmen- <br />impacts of proposed federal actions, not a substantive act thai prevents impacts. See Strycker's Bay <br />Ighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227 (1980); National Helium Corp. v. Morton. 486 <br />d 995, 1000-01, 1003 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993 (1974). <br />7. See United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 699 n.3 (1978). <br />