Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />At page 33 the report states, .With salinity concen- <br />trations about 60 mg/l below the numeric criteria at the <br />lower mainstem stations is highly unlikely that the criteria <br />will be exceeded during the next 12 month period." (See <br />also the proposed 1978 Revision Water Quality Standards <br />for Salinity Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of Imple- <br />mentation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System, <br />prepared by Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, <br />August, 1978, pages 6 through 23, the cover page of which <br />is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 a full copy has been sub- <br />mitted by the state as an exhibit.) <br /> <br />United States Responsibility for Salinity Control <br /> <br />In recognition of the fact that near.ly 70% of the land <br />within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned or con- <br />trolled and the fact that between 50% and two-thirds of <br />the salinity contribution is from natural sources, Congress <br />specifically addressed the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Control solution and accepted responsibilities for bearing <br />the primary financial burden for control through enactment <br />of the Colorado River.Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. <br />This Act was prompted also by the need to provide a means <br />for insuring that the allocation of Colorado River water <br />to Mexico was of satisfactory quality pursuant to Minute <br />242 of the treaty between the United States and Mexico. <br />The 1974 Act resulted in approval of the basin-wise approach <br />to salinity control with specific recognition of the rights <br />under the Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River <br />Compact. For a thorough discussion as to the interaction <br />between the Salinity Control Act of 1974 and the Colorado <br />River Compacts and the Congressional recognition of the <br />states' rights under the Acts, see the Memorandum in Support <br />of Motion to Dismiss, Matters Concerning the Role of Inter- <br />state Compacts of the Colorado River on the Claims Presented <br />by Plaintiff, submitted by Mountain States Legal Foundation, <br />et al., defendant-intervenors, in &oF v. Costle, a copy <br />of which is attached hereto as Exhibit-4. <br /> <br />From this legislation it is apparent that Congress <br />has recognized that the burden of meeting the Mexican Treaty <br />insofar as salinity is concerned should not be borne by <br />the water users of the Colorado River. Congress has also <br />recognized that water remains undeveloped, particularly <br />in the Upper Basin states, and that this water must be left <br />free for future beneficial use by the states under the <br />provisions of the compacts. It is important then for the <br />state to follow this lead in not placing an onerous burden <br /> <br />-4- <br />