My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03718
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:51:45 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:55:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.800.10
Description
Colorado River-Colorado River Basin-Colorado River Basin General Correspondence-Lower Basin\states
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/12/1991
Author
Gary D Weatherford
Title
As the Ratchet Turns Bureau Regulations for the Lower Basin
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the Lower Basin, under certain conditions. The wheeling of <br />tributary water, such as the Virgin River in Nevada, is not <br />authorized in the Bureau's draft of last Spring (much to my <br />dismay and that of my client). The applicant desiring wheeling <br />of non-Colorado River water would have to pay the cost of <br />administrative review, enter a contract with the United States, <br />indemnify the United States, show an absence of adverse impacts, <br />comply with applicable laws, install measurement devices, share <br />in Colorado River losses, forego credits for associated energy <br />production and, most importantly, secure approval of the states <br />involved. <br /> <br />Water that would otherwise reach the mainstream is <br />considered Colorado system water and therefore would not be <br />available for wheeling. The wheeled water would have to be of a <br />qual i ty not to degrade the mainstream. Once the wheeled water <br />were used it would lose its identity as such and carry no return <br />flow credit. Also the wheeled water would be in a junior <br />posi tion in the operation of the storage and delivery system, <br />meaning that it would be released ahead of Colorado River water <br />when flood control releases are required. <br /> <br />I have only touched upon some of the high points of the <br />Bureau's draft regulations, but hopefully enough to give you a <br />sense that the draft represents an historic departure from the <br />minimalist regulatory posture of the past. <br /> <br />V. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? <br /> <br />. <br />A. Selective Issues Posed <br /> <br />Let me now identify some particular issues posed, <br />either directly or indirectly, by the regulations. <br /> <br />1. Directly Posed <br /> <br />a. "Where is the hydrological boundary between <br />federal and state jurisdiction?" <br /> <br />It is clear from the Supreme Court's 1963 opinion <br />in Arizona v. California and the 1964 Decree, as supplemented, <br />that the Secretary of the Interior controls the mainstream and <br />the Lower Basin states control the respective tributaries within <br />their boundaries. Left unanswered up to this point is the <br />question: What constitutes a tributary? Does it include any <br />inflow, whether it be surface or subsurface? And at what point <br />does the commingling of such tributary water with the mainstream <br />occur? How broad is the underflow of the mainstream? To answer <br />these questions is to draw a line (or perhaps a DMZ!) between <br /> <br />LS;O <br /> <br />- 9 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.