WSPC01633 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O ." ' "3 I .,;- ~._ v cI . . meeting on January 9, 1985, in San Diego, California. All of the representatives were concerned that the pressures for continuing development along the lower Colorado River could result in further encroachments into the Colorado River floodway, thereby creating demands for further flood protection by reserving more flood control storage space in the upstream reservoirs at the expense of reducing the storage space available for conservation of river flows. They concluded that the proposed bill would provide a tool to help the states and local governmental agencies guide future developments along the river so that they would not encroach upon the floodway. Accordingly, the Colorado River Basin states representatives declared their support for the enactment of the proposed legislation. The representatives from the seven states unanimously passed and signed a wResolution Supporting Enactment of the Colorado River Floodway Protection Act-, as redrafted dur ing the January 9 meeting. The redraft of the legislation developed by the Colorado River Basin states formed the basis for House Bill H.R. 1246 which was introduced by Congressmen Richard Cheney and George Miller on February 25, 1985 and later approved by the House of Representatives on September 24, 1985. This is the same day ,that S. 1696 was introduced in the Senate. Comparison of S. 1696 (Goldwater) with S. 498 (DeConcini) On February 22, 1985, Senator Dennis DeConcini introduced Senate Bill S. 498, which creates a Colorado River Floodway Task Force to study and make recommendations relative to the problems brought about by the high flows experienced in the lower Colorado River area in 1983. The state representatives have reviewed S. 498, together with S. 1696, and believe that S. 1696 incorporates the major features of DeConc ini 's bill that the state representatives consider essential for timely development and implementation of a Colorado River floodway. The two bills address, although in different ways, the following matters: the size and design criteria of the floodway; the need for additional floodway management at local, state and federal levels; the acceptance of recreation facilities and fish and wildlife enhancement within the floodway; and consideration of relocations and land transfers for thos e living with in the flood pIa in. Other related aspects of the two bills deal with limiting future construction and federal expenditures within the floodway, some degree of compensation for damages sustained because of the 1983 high flows, and emergency plans and assistance for emergency actions. -8-