Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1. The standard of review in judging the agencies' decision to prepare <br />a comprehensive EIS is an arbitrary and capricious standard. <br /> <br />2. The court must defer in the first instance to the Secretary's <br />discretion in determining the ne~dfor, and the timing of, a comprehen- <br />sive EIS. <br /> <br />3. Under Kleppe vs. Sierra Club, the Secretary has discretion to study <br />cumulative impacts of projects in site-specific EIS's rather than being <br />required to do cumulative statements in all cases. <br /> <br />The court concluded by stating that "expert agencies have considerable <br />discretion in this area" that will not be upset by the court without a <br />clear showing of "arbitrary and capricious" conduct. <br /> <br />In addition to the water rights and legal constraints related to salinity <br />control, institutional matters are a growing concern. For example, in <br />Las Vegas Wash near Las Vegas, Nevada, several Federal, State, and local <br />agency programs are under study which may be in conflict with salinity <br />control features of the Las Vegas Wash Unit. Under a recent Consent Decree <br />action, EPA, the State of Nevada, Clark County, and local cities estab- <br />lished a study framework to evaluate program improvements in the following <br />areas: <br /> <br />1. Advanced sewage treatment and use of the wash for nutrient stripping <br />and control. <br /> <br />2. Flood protection and erosion controls. <br /> <br />3. Development of wetlands park and greenbelt protection. <br /> <br />These program areas may accommodate or may conflict with salinity control <br />features located in the same geographical areas. Obviously, a comprehen- <br />sive interagency implementation strategy is necessary to resolve potential <br />program conflicts. Such a strategy is being pursued. <br /> <br />Future Basin Management <br /> <br />The CRWQIP has undergone delays and schedule changes throughout its dura- <br />tion. Lack of manpower and new information on individual units have caused <br />delays and reappraisals. The Las Vegas Wash Unit required reformulation of <br />plans because of changing institutional conditions and changing flow and <br />salinity concentration. During the past few years, however, with the <br />Forum's urging, schedule slippage has been kept to a minimum. <br /> <br />Estimated salinity projections vary depending upon who made the study, what <br />assumptions were made, and the methodology used. This section will only <br />briefly explain some of those differences. <br /> <br />In the Quality of Water - Colorado River Basin Progress Report No. 10, [5J <br />released in January 1981 by the Bureau of Reclamation, the data in table 0 <br />were based on 1941 through 1978 averages rather than a year-by-year study. <br />These data were developed using "present modified method" (that is 1941 <br /> <br />30 <br />