WSP05470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. "r". .1u";J Statement on the proposed rul~ is being prepared, which statement will include various alternative methods of complying with the 1958 Act. Environmental Defense Fund v. Costle, et .11. The Environmental Defense Fund (EOF) suit on Colorado River salinity standards, described in the Board's 1977 and 1978 Annual Reports, continued during the year. On April 30, 1979, the EDF filed its motion for summary judgment in the litigation. The defendants responded on July 6, 1979, with a separate motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a statement of material facts and affidavits by the Chief Engineer of the Board, Carl Slingerland of New Mexico, and Don DuBois and Gene Reetz of the Environmental Protl:'Ction Agency. Oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment were held on August 10 in Washington. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Flannery entered a judgment on the litigation on October 3, 1979, which granted the federal-state defendants' motion for summary judgment on all sill. claims in the litigation, and, at the same time, denied the EDF motion. In an accompanying 17.page opinion, the judge found that the defendants had shown that there was a reasonable basis, as demonstrated in the administrative record, for the Environmental Protection Agency's action in approving the State-adopted standards. The judge also found it unnecessary to consider the effects of the Colorado River Compacts on the plaintiff's claims. This favorable decision enables the seven Basin states and the federal agencies to proceed with their cooperative efforts to meet the numeric salinity criteria for the Colorado River while the Basin states continue to develop their Compact.apportioned waters. On December 3, 1979, the EOF filed a notice of appeal with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. legislation Proposed Federal Legisliltion on IVestern Ared Power Administriltion A bill, S. 734, e-ntitled "Federal Powe-r Marketing Revolving Fund Act of 1979", was introduced into the U.S. Senate on March 22, 1979, at the request of the Administration. This bill would establish revolving funds for four federal power marketing agencies, using revenues from power marketing from fede-ral power facilities, and would greatly ell.p.:ind the ability of the agencies to acquire transmission facilities. Because of concerns that the authorities granted by this bill could e-nable the federal power agencies to unilaterally set rates for Hoover and Parker-Davis power aiter e-).piration of ell.isling contracts, and to acquire- all or portions of transmission facilities owned by California age-ncies, the Board sought amendments to the bill. Meetings were held with repres€'ntativ{'S of Arizona, California, and Nevada power entities, and amendments to S. 734 were drafted that would be acce-ptable to the entities and would provide the prot€'Ction deemed to be necessary. On June 28, 1979, the Chief EnginE't'r presented a statement containing the amendments in Washington, D.C., before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Supply of the Senate Committf"E' on Energy and Natural Resources. The statement represe-nted the views of the Colorado River Board, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the State of Arizona, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District. No further action on this proposed legislation occurred during 1979. ,. Energy Mobiliution BOJrd During 1979, Congress developed legislation to create a new federal agency, an "energy mobilization board," as a part of the President's energy program. Such a board would have the power to expedite the construction and operation of projects that would develop the nation's energy f{'Sources. Under S. 1 ]08, passed by the Senate, and one version of H.R. 4985, approved by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, this board would have the power to overrule laws and rules and regulations that would otherwise hinder these projE"Cts. Another version of H.R. 4985, dpproved by the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, did not grant thoo;e powers to the proposed board. Becau..e of concprns that the enabling legislation might grant powers to this board which could result in abrogation of existing water rights in the Colorado Rive-r Basin, the Chief Enginee-r worked with other Basin stolte rE'presentatives and drafted amendments to thesE' bills that would exempt interstat€' water compacts, state and IOCdl water laws, and federal water contracts from the powers of the proposed energy mobilization board. The language of these amendments was revised and later added to the Commt'rce Committee's version of H.R. 4985. In a meeting with western states go"ernors in October, the President endorsed this exemption pertaining to water rights.