My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03032
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03032
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:48:18 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:30:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272.600.60
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Basin Member State Info - Utah
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/7/1975
Author
Utah State Univ
Title
Colorado Regional Assessment Study - Phase One Report for the National Commission on Water Quality - Part 1 of 2 -- Title Page - end Chapter V
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
224
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />w <br />00 <br />o <br />CO <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />same quality of water as that delivered at Imperial Dam (about 870 ppm). <br /> <br />As a result of this meeting, President Nixon appointed Herbert Brownell <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"to find a permanent, definitive and just solution" to the problem. <br /> <br />Brovmell's efforts led to Minute 242 (l973). 5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Widespread discontent in the United States with these negotiated <br /> <br />settlements and the argument that the "structural solution" of Minute 242 <br /> <br />must be combined with a Basin-wide program of salinity control were <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />factors leading to the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. <br /> <br />Water Quality Issues in the Politics <br />of Water Allocation <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Several examples taken from House hearings on bills to authorize <br /> <br />the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act can be given to illustrate <br /> <br />how water quality issues have been raised by parties to influence the <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />outcome of water development and allocation decisions. Utah voiced <br /> <br />"serious questions" about the availability of water of adequate quality <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />from the Green in its (successful) attempt to receive rights of 500,000 <br /> <br />af/yr from the Yampa in Colorado. Second, concern over the quality of <br /> <br />water in the Green was raised as a factor in the justification of Echo Park <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Dam, later deleted in the plan authorizing the Flaming Gorge Dam. And <br /> <br />third, California's Counsel, Northcutt Ely, argued (unsuccessfully) that <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Article VIII of the 1922 Compact (which states that "present perfected <br /> <br />rights to the beneficial use of water of the Colorado River System are <br /> <br />unimpaired by this compact") implies that California's perfected rights <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />l8 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.