Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />control salinity the states have worked through the Colorado River Basin <br />~ Salinity Control Forum to insure that salinity control does not unduly <br />en burden any particular state or group of water users. <br />~ <br />~ Because the hitherto relatively undeveloped Upper Basin states <br />. are now facing extensive energy development (Table I) prior to construc- <br />tion of adequate upstream storage facilities, new conflicts could arise <br />concerning deliveries of water to the Lower Basin. These pressures <br />will be aggravated if salinity control needs consume water which could <br />otherwise be put to beneficial use. <br /> <br />State policies. Following the potential regional split, the <br />seven states are subject to intra- and interstate conflict over water <br />uses and salinity control. One state may encourage industrial develop- <br />ment while another may seek to preserve irrigated agriculture. Because <br />of their more immediate responsiveness and accessibility, state policy- <br />makers may also be subject to influence by environmental groups. They <br />may also be more resistant, settling up a federal-state conflict be- <br />tween immediate perceived needs and long-term environmental goals. In <br />either case the day-to-day functions of state government have the most <br />immediate impact on water allocation, permissible water uses, and al- <br />lowable discharges, <br /> <br />Special interest groups. Environmental groups are but one class <br />of interests exerting or attempting to exert influence on the management <br />and development of the Colorado River system. Irrigation organizations, <br />water conservation districts, energy developers, and municipalities all <br />have stakes in river management, On one hand pro-development groups may <br />seek construction of further storage facilities while other groups will <br />urge all conservation measures to optimize water use while allowing <br />freer stream flow. These conflicts may threaten the traditional coali- <br />tion of the seven states acting in concert as the various groups achieve <br />differiNg degrees of influence over policymakers in each state. Specif- <br />ic reuse applications which might be acceptable to the broad range of <br />special interest groups may still conflict with the perceived role of <br />certain regulatory bodies such as a Public Utilities Commission as it <br />expresses reluctance to pass along reuse costs in a regulated rate struc- <br />ture. <br /> <br />Institutional obstacles to reuse. The various needs, demands <br />and concerns heretofore traced provide the skeleton framework in which <br />institutional obstacles to water reuse may arise, The conflicts in- <br />herent in competing uses of water and in differing philosophies of devel- <br />opment are reflected in the actual day-to-day management of Colorado <br /> <br />II-S <br /> <br />j,j _f~ <br />