WSP00180 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . W The water rights law of each of the seven states contains 'varia- ~ tions of the appropriation doctrine. However, determination of priority W ownership, allowable points of diversion, interpretation of historic _n ~. patterns of water use and stream flow, significance of legally defined use preferences and definitions of beneficial uses, are complex in each state.2 What might be an acceptable reuse in one state could cause problems in another. For example, several states have energy siting statutes which could be used to encourage reuse of low quality waters. Arizona, California and Nevada have specific statutes which have been used to provide water supplies for electrical generating plants. New Mexico and Wyoming also have statutory authority for industrial siting, but are using informal approaches to encourage water reuse where they feel it is effective. Colorado and Utah have no specific authority, although Utah policy supports industrial reuse of water. In each case water rights law may inhibit the ability of any statutory authority for industrial siting to have an influence on water supplies. More likely barriers are to be found in the administrative or political attitude toward water reuse. It is unlikely, under existing water law, that any state can force reuse of low qualit.y water in any but a few specific instances. Beginning with the Colorado River Compact of 1922 there are other federal, regional and state legal structures which may impact on water reuse in the Colorado River Basin. The compact itself appears to set an absolute limit on the amount of Colorado River water each state may consume. As discussed in Chapter I, uncertainty about the actual arnowlt of water available further restricts state options. Court deci- sions regarding reserved water rights of Indian tribes and federal res- ervations3 further enhance the uncertainty of the water supply available for use and reuse, Actual implementation of a reuse project may entail preparation of an environmen~al impact statement under regulation of the National Environmental Policy Act (P,L. 81-180) and response to concerns spelled out by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 93-523). Location of such a project could be affected by a series of peripheral environmental acts including: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; The Endangered and Threatened Species Preservation 2Complete explication of these laws may be found in: Wells A. Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States, 2 volumes (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1971; 1974). 1winters v. U,S. (1908); Arizona v. California (1963); U,S. v. California, 438 U.S. 645, 1978. II-3 "