Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />dilution water and have a concentrating effect but the federal <br />water quality laws specifically preserves State water law systems <br />and the rights to quantities of water obtained under such systems <br />(Section 101(g), 1977 Clean Water Act). <br /> <br />The Seven Colorado River States and the Environmental <br />Protection Agency, against this complicated background of legal, <br />technical, and economic, constraints on salinity contr?l, evolved <br />a plan, adopted as Appendix C'by this Commission, which accom- <br />odates anticipated Upper Basin Water 'Projects through the year <br />1990 (pp. 25-26, Appendix C, ,Commission, 1975). The plan, <br />and the adopted standards, recognized that temporary increases <br />about 1972 levels may result as water projects are completed <br />before the implementation of control measures, but that such <br />increases will be considered 'as being, ill' compliance (pp. ii'-iii, <br />Appendix C, Commission 1975). <br /> <br />The Commission is aware 'that':the 'F.ederal Distric,t <br />Court in Washing~on, D. C. recently ~ejected the argument of <br />the Environmental Defense Fund that a: 'State must adopt <br />numerical water quality criteria for ,galinity within its <br />geographical boundaries. The Court said: <br /> <br />The States I decision 'not: to' establish <br />criteria upstream, which was influenced by <br />the conclusion that salinity '~ ~ threaten <br />designated ~~esof t.hecolorado River wateL in <br />upper basin states and by ,the technical diffi- <br />culties that would attend attempts to set <br />upstream standards, similary 'is' e'xplained in <br />the record, AR 60-61, and has a reasonable <br />basis. <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />1459 <br />