WSP02396

• File Number: 8210.140.20
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Basin States Forum - California
• State: CA
• Basin: Western Slope
• Date: 1/1/1978
• Author: Myron B Holburt
• Title: Annual Report for the Calendar Year 1977
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

IG41

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY'

EDMUND G. BROWN JR" Governor

-=

COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 8103
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
[phone]

@

June 27, 1978

Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear. Governor Brown:

1t':'W"~~.~~,.S~;d;.ito present to you and the Legislature the Colorado River Board's

::-~:::_~:f2:;_ ~~:.scJendar Year 1977.

..... ,~~~h;..JFi2~H~.~~f',Of California's Colorado River water supply was dramatically illus-
>t.t'Ih~ J1a.~. dutiing the worst drought in California's and the Colorado River Basin's
history. Pumping of California State Project water over the Tehachapi Mountains was
stopped on March 1, 1977, which meant that Southern California had to rely primarily on
the Colorado River and local supplies so that Central and Northern California areas
could utilize all available State Project water. It was the availability of 47 million
acre-feet of storage located in the seven-state Colorado River Basin reservoirs that
enabled the Southern California coastal plain to receive 61 percent more Colorado River
water in the drought year of 1977 than in'1976. The Board's Chief Engineer worked with
Arizona, Nevada, and federal officials in order to ensure delivery of additional water
to southern California.

The salinity standards adopted by the seven basin states and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in 1975-76 were challenged in August by a lawsuit filed by the
Environmental Defense Fund against EPA and the Department of the Interior. The suit
seeks to set aside EPA's approval of the salinity standards and to require EPA to promul-
gate new standards and implementation plans for salinity controls. Since the suit could
destroy many years of joint federal-stat~ efforts to ameliorate Colorado River salinity
problems, California joined with the other six Colorado River Basin states and inter-
vened as a defendant in the suit.

Substantial progress was made in the continuing efforts to settle the long-standing
issue of present perfected rights (pre-1929 Colorado River water rights). In May, Cali-
fornia, Arizona, Nevada and the Southern California public agencies that are parties to
the Arizona v. California litigation, filed a joint motion with the U.S. Supreme Court
for determination of present perfected rights and the entry of a supplemental decree.
This action stimulated renewed negotiations between the United States and the State
Parties, and toward the end of the year, it appeared that a real opportunity existed to
resolve the matter without further litigation. However, in late December, there was a
new complication when three of the five lower Colorado River Indian tribes filed a
motion for leave to intervene as indispensable parties.

These and other activities in the Colorado River Basin are described in the report
which follows and in a separate supplemental appendix.

Sinc~ly yours, I ~
I/~_.. a 1..////1 ~ /,
-r~ \..... /l~
Patricia C. Nagle, Chair~an
and Colorado River Commissioner