WSP00486

• File Number: 8210.470
• Description: Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 11/27/1978
• Author: PSIAC
• Title: Minutes of the 78-3 Meeting - November 27-28 1978
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

Valley. I am sure that there are those who would argue that Las
Vegas Valley and the state of Nevada would have been better off if
that hadn't been done and Las Vega. had been limited to the size
25-35,000 acre-feet would .upport. But this has been a natural
scheme that did not hurt the resource and allowed for the develop-
ment of the area in concert with the state and local views. I would
hate to see a National Wat,er Policy come along that would take that
kind of prerogative away from the etate and local people.

I am reall;Y' concerned about this, minimum flow concept and the effect
on return flows. For example, I know that in various parts of the
state the idea of land disposal for sewage effluent is being con-
sidered and has been considered as quite a new thing, but as treat-
ment costs go up and as other environmental concerns come to the
forefront, there is an increasing interest I think in land disposal.
Also in the West we frankly can't afford the water for land disposal
to solve the water qU8J.ity problem. We just don't have the water to
do it.

I am concerned about the threat in the National Water Policy about
endangered species and some of thoee things you are conoerned about
on the Colorado River here. I can see where there will be a real
threat if this proposed National Water Policy would take water out
of our stream systems for water quality control for the protection
of endangered species. At the same time, once water is taken out
for water quality control, it puts an additional demand on the stream
system to maintain minimum flows for the fish and wildlife and en-
dangered species. It is one of those situations again where everyone
will agree there is not an acceptable answer. So I would hope we
would all guard against the idea of depleting our resources for water
quali ty control. While it may be more expensive to clean them up
otherwise, I think that is what we are faoed with here in these water
short areas. Again, our real oonoern I think as far as water quality
is oonoerned is how the National Water Policy is going to be implemented.

At the outset we were talking about the federal reserve rights, and all
of us have litigation underway now. But there were three recent Supreme
Court decisions which you all are probably aware of. One was right
here in Las Vegas that was, called the Charleston Stone Products case.
To make a long story short, the issue was basioally whether a plant
for mining operation, under the mining laws, inoluded a reserve right
for water to wash the gravel. That is an over-simplification of it,
but that is essentially what it was. There was another question that
was not addressed in the administrative hearings on this gravel placer
mining operation and not addressed in the Federal District Court. All
of a sudden the Ninth District Court of Appeals in San Francisco,
when it entered its decision, put something in the decision that said
that, for the parts of that mining operation under the mineral laws,
there was also a right reserved for water to wash the gravel. The

C-22