Laserfiche WebLink
<br />W <br />.t:. <br />o <br />W <br /> <br />use by others. Thus, any salinity control plan involving reuse or disposal <br />must recognize the potential legal requirement of purchasing water rights <br />that compensate downstream users for any injury caused by reuse or dispo- <br />sal, or otherwise paying indemnification for the damages caused. <br /> <br />In connection with the Paradox Valley Unit. a legal issue was raised on <br />whether or not brine is (.onsidered a mineral within the meaning of "oil, <br />gas. and mineral rights," so as to require acquisition of a mineral right <br />prior to disposal of the brine. A strong line of legal precedence supports <br />the view that saline water is not considered to be a mineral. Moreover. <br />present use of Paradox brine for milling uranium ore ;s for its fluid <br />properties and not for its mineral content. As such, Reclamation is <br />proceeding with its brine pumping activities without obtaining mineral <br />permits since subsurface owners do not have any apparent compensable <br />interests in the brines. <br /> <br />Another pertinent legal issue was related to alleged water rights for canal <br />seepage from the Uinta Basin Unit. With the planned lining of canals, <br />seepage water would be substantially reduced, possibly affecting water <br />supplies in lower canals. Under Utah State case law, however. the holder <br />of a water right is entitled to use waste and seepage waters as long as it <br />is in his possession and control. Once out of his possession and control, <br />the seepage water may be appropriated by others. However, the original <br />holder of the water right is not obligated to maintain this method of use <br />so that the subsequent appropriator may continue to enjoy a water supply. <br /> <br />Other issues. - Two recent civil court actions have a strong influence on <br />Basinwide salinity control and water resources development plans. In <br />August 1977, the EOF (Environmental Defense Fund) filed suit against the <br />EPA, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Reclamation, seeking <br />review of certain actions and inactions by the agencies regarding salinity <br />standards and salinity control progr(ll1s in the Colorado River. The EDF <br />sought an order from the court requiring EPA to promulgate regulations <br />setting forth new water quality standards. implementation plans, and waste <br />load allocations for salinity in the basin. The order would also have <br />required EPA, Interior, and Rec1~ation to study, develop, and describe <br />alternative methods of salinity control. In October 1979, U.S. District <br />Court for the District of Columbia ruled favorably on the Government's <br />motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims raised by the plain- <br />tiff. EOF. An appeal also ruled in favor of the Government. On April 21. <br />1981. the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's <br />decision. <br /> <br />In the other civil action. the EOF, Trout Unlimited. and the Wilderness <br />Society filed suit in June 1978 in Federal District Court in Washington, <br />D.C., against Reclamation and Interior. The suit sought preparation of a <br />comprehensive environmental impact statement analyzing existing and future <br />water resource projects and operations in the Colorado River Basin. The <br />suit also sought to enjoin construction of several new Federal water <br />resource projects unti 1 the comprehensive environmental impact statement <br />is completed. In a January 1980 decision. the court, in 9ranting the <br />Government's motion for summary judgment, held that: <br /> <br />29 <br />