Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, " <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />21-17 <br /> <br />LAW OF THE COLORADO RIVER <br /> <br />S 21.02[8] <br /> <br />[8] Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act <br /> <br />The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act64 (CRBSCA) <br />was precipitated by Mexican protests over salt levels. By <br />1961 the salt level of Colorado River water reaching Mexico <br />from the mainstream nearly doubled to 2,700 parts per mil- <br />lion as a result of discharges of highly saline underground <br />water pumped by the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drain- <br />age District in southern Arizona near the foot of the Gila.55 <br />Mexico claimed this water was ruining its crops. Although <br />the Mexican Water Treaty does not expressly address water <br />quality, the United States began to ameliorate the problem <br />by diluting the salt with greater amount of fresh water re- <br />leased from storage and by channeling the Wellton-Mohawk <br />discharges around the Mexican diversion point at the More- <br />los Dam. Interim agreements were entered into with Mexico <br />and further remedial actions undertaken by the United <br />States. Then in 1973 the nations signed Minute 242 of the <br />International Boundary and Water Commission, 56 which <br />committed the United States to deliver water to Mexico from <br />the mainstream containing on the average no more than 115 <br />parts per million of salt more than the salt content of the <br />water used by the Imperial Valley. That standard would gen- <br />erally limit the salt content of the Mexican water to about <br />1,000 parts per million. 57 In order to implement this agree- <br />ment, Congress passed the CRBSCA. <br /> <br />The CRBSCA initially authorized four salinity control <br />projects and has been amended to authorize numerous other <br />such projects, eight of which have been finished or are under <br />construction. 58 The largest is a desalinization plant near <br />Yuma, Arizona, costing about $500 million and scheduled for <br /> <br />Lake Powell in apparent violation of 43 U.S.C. ~ 1552(aX3) (1982) during years when <br />active storage in Lake Powell was less than in Lake Mead. <br />54 S <br />43 U. .C. ~~ 1571 et seq. (1982). <br />55 See Hundley, supra note 23, at 38; Getches. supra note 7, at 462-63. <br />56 Minute 21B, 4 Int'Z Legal Materials 545 (1965); 55 Department of State Bulletin <br />555 (1965). <br />57 Hundley, supra note 23, at 39. <br />58 <br />Getches, supra note 7. at 464. <br />