|
<br />unmeasured return flows in the lower
<br />Basin.
<br />The Board's Chief engineer
<br />attended a meeting of the Task Force
<br />on March 23, 1978, in Phoenix,
<br />Arizona, at which time the progress
<br />was discussed. It was agreed that a
<br />program will be established whereby
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation will
<br />establish the specific information
<br />required from the Geological Survey
<br />so that unmeasured return flows by
<br />districts and by states can be
<br />determined in the Yuma area. The
<br />Geological Survey is continuing to
<br />develop the mathematical models and
<br />computer techniques for evaluating
<br />the magnitude of return flows in the
<br />area. The piezometer drilling program
<br />has been completed in the Palo Verde
<br />and Cibola Valleys, but the measuring
<br />instruments and river-stage stations
<br />had not yet been installed. The
<br />Bureau of Indian Affairs began setting
<br />well points on the Fort Mojave Indian
<br />Reservation to obtain data for
<br />development of an irrigation drainage
<br />system.
<br />
<br />Proposed Restudy of Colorado River
<br />Operating Cnteria
<br />On May 19, 1978, Secretary of the
<br />Interior Cecil Andrus wrote letters to
<br />the Governors of the seven Colorado
<br />River Basi~ states requesting them to
<br />send representatives to a meeting in
<br />June in Salt lake City with Bureau of
<br />Reclamation representatives. The
<br />purpose of the meeting would be to
<br />discuss engineering studies that would
<br />assist the Secretary in making the
<br />annual decisions in regard to the
<br />amount of storage in Upper Basin
<br />reservoirs required pursuant to the
<br />operating criteria for Colorado River
<br />reservoirs under Section 602 (a) of the
<br />1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act
<br />(called "602 (a) storage").
<br />Reclamation representatives
<br />proposed new studies to develop
<br />hydrologic data and the interaction
<br />between 602 (a) storage and the
<br />Hoover Dam flood control releases
<br />required by the Corps of Engineers.
<br />They also suggested forming an
<br />advisory committee, with a charter to
<br />be published in the Federal Register
<br />along with notices of all committee
<br />
<br />.~ G ""1
<br />1 ",
<br />
<br />meetings. State representatives
<br />questioned the need for any studies at
<br />this time and suggested that the
<br />formal procedure of forming a
<br />committee be avoided because it is
<br />too cumbersome and is not needed.
<br />It was agreed that formal studies
<br />would not be undertaken at this time,
<br />but that Upper Basin and lower Basin
<br />representatives would prepare
<br />separate statements on criteria which
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation could use
<br />for a short study to analyze how
<br />urgent it is to conduct any new
<br />studies of 602 (a) storage. Arizona,
<br />Nevada, and California representatives
<br />met in June and July to discuss a draft
<br />statement prepared by the Board's
<br />staff. After revision, the statement was
<br />transmitted to the Bureau of
<br />Reclamation by the Board's Chief
<br />Engineer on behalf of the three states
<br />on July 26, 1978. The statement
<br />concluded that there is no need to
<br />restudy the Operating Criteria at this
<br />time.
<br />
<br />EDF v. Costle, et al
<br />The suit filed by the Environmental
<br />Defense Fund (EDF) against the
<br />Environmental Protection Agency
<br />(EPA), the Department of the Interior,
<br />and the Bureau of Reclamation on
<br />August 22, 1977, is proceeding. In late
<br />1977, Attorney General Younger filed
<br />a motion, on behalf of the People of
<br />the State of California, to intervene as
<br />a defendant in the suit. On January
<br />18, 1978, Judge Flannery granted the
<br />motion for intervention by California,
<br />as well as similar motions by the
<br />other Basin states. Each of the Basin
<br />states was given full status as party
<br />defendants.
<br />Discovery, mainly the collection of
<br />federal, state, and Salinity Control
<br />Forum documents related to the
<br />salinity standards, is in progress by all
<br />parties and is expected to be
<br />completed in early 1979 as is the filing
<br />of the Administrative Record.
<br />It is anticipated that rulings will be
<br />made on the major issues in the suit
<br />within the next year.
<br />
<br />EDF, et al v. Higginson et a/
<br />On June 21, 1978, Environmental
<br />Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF), Trout
<br />Unlimited, and the Wilderness Society
<br />
<br />18
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />filed suit in federal district court in
<br />Washington, D.C., against R. Keith
<br />Higginson, Commissioner of
<br />Reclamation, and Cecil D. Andrus,
<br />Seretary of the Interior, to require
<br />preparation of a comprehensive
<br />environmental impact statement (EIS)
<br />analyzing existing and future water
<br />resource projects and operations in
<br />the Colorado River basin. The suit
<br />also sought to enjoin construction of
<br />several new federal water resource
<br />projects in the Basin (except salinity
<br />control projects) until the
<br />comprehensive EIS is completed.
<br />Included in a list of new projects
<br />were several units of the Central
<br />Arizona Project and the Central Utah
<br />Project. The Coachella Canal Unit of
<br />the Colorado River Basin Salinity
<br />Control Project, located in California,
<br />was specifically exempted from the
<br />injunction request as were the other
<br />salinity control projects.
<br />The States of Arizona, Colorado,
<br />Nevada, and Wyoming, and the Utah
<br />Power and Light Company intervened
<br />as defendants. California did not
<br />intervene.
<br />The Department of the Interior had
<br />previously agreed that a
<br />comprehensive EIS is required and
<br />began regional public meetings in
<br />1977, including a meeting in the los
<br />Angeles area. Because of the high
<br />estimated cost of developing the
<br />statement, in excess of $4 million, and
<br />because it was proposed to be funded
<br />by overhead charges applied to all
<br />Colorado River Basin Projects, Basin
<br />state Congressmen questioned the
<br />validity of the EIS without a specific
<br />budget request. The Chairman of the
<br />House Public Works Subcommittee
<br />concluded that no funds had been
<br />approved by Congress for the EIS, so
<br />Interior stopped work on the EIS
<br />pending approval of funds. In 1978,
<br />Congress enacted legislation which
<br />provided that as long as site specific
<br />EIS's were completed, the projects
<br />could go ahead regardless of a
<br />requirement for a comprehensive EIS.
<br />However, no funds were appropriated
<br />for a comprehensive EIS.
<br />
<br />Water flows 242 miles from lake Havasu
<br />through MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct
<br />to lake Mathews in Riverside County.
<br />
|