My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05306
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:57:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Getches and Meyers
Title
The River of Controversy - Persistent Issues
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.
/
52
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 />awaited central Arizona Project, Arizona had to show that it was making <br /> <br />31 <br />significanc efforts. to conserve all its l.Jater r~sol.lrces. The state re- <br /> <br />sponded by enacting one of the nation's strict~s( groundwater conservation <br /> <br />laws in 1':11$0.32 <br /> <br />As demands on the river become more intense, Congress may perceive a <br /> <br />national interest in insuring that all the waters of the basin states are <br /> <br />wisely used. Federal legislation could invade turf traditionally reserved to <br /> <br />the states by regulating groundwater allocation and use. That possibility was <br /> <br />, foreshadowed by a 1982 Supreme Court decision33 in which the Court stated <br /> <br />"Cround water overdraft is a national problem and Congress has the power to <br /> <br />deal with it on that scale.,,34 <br /> <br />(shZ) <br /> <br />Can Use Of The River For Power Production Be Reconciled With Optimum <br />Management For water Delivery? <br /> <br />Management of the river and timing of releases from dams to respond to <br /> <br />demands of water users and to satisfy upper basin-lower basin obligations way <br /> <br />be inconsistent with efficient power generation. /~further problew is the <br /> <br />impact of hydroelectric dam operations on recreational activity and on fish <br /> <br />and wildlife. ~creational users have objected to proposals to operate dams <br />35 <br />on the river to meet periodic needs for peak power loads. <br /> <br />The Secretary of the Interior, as manager of the Colorado River dam <br />h""f!,t....oQQ,.,.~ <br />system, ~}-elect to maximize the production of electricity, to maximize the <br />~ <br />reliability of water supplies, or to optimize the availability of both.3b The <br /> <br />1922 compact expresses a clear preference for domestic and agricultural uses <br /> <br />J' <br /> <br />over power production in Article IV(). Energy uses simply were not as impor- <br /> <br />tant then as they are today. Perhaps it could be argued that the authoriza- <br /> <br />tion of newer projects that are feasible only as hydroelectric facilities <br /> <br />reflects a congressional awareness of changing times. The 1968 Colorado River <br /> <br />- 13 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.