Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,I' f'" 4 <br />J. U U'~ <br /> <br />Board opposed the transfer on <br />grounds that it might open the door <br />for conveying additional water rights <br />to the reservation, to the detriment of <br />existing Colorado river water users in <br />California. The Caljfornia Department <br />of Fish & Game opposed the transfer <br />because of its impact on the Wildlife <br />Refuge and its reduction in public <br />access to the Lake. <br />Late in 1974, the Board learned that <br />the Department of the Interior had <br />been negotiating with the Quechan <br />Tribe of the Yuma Indian Reservation <br />to expand the boundaries of the <br />reservation by returning to the tribe <br />about 32,000 acres of land which the <br />tribe had previously transferred to the <br />United States. The tribe has <br />announced that it will seek to obtain <br />wilter rights for a portion of these <br />lands. <br /> <br />Central Utah Project <br /> <br />In January, 1974, four environmental <br />groups filed actions in Salt Lake City <br />in the U.S. District Court for Utah <br />against the Bureau of Reclamation and <br />the Secretary of the Interior to halt <br />construction of the Central Utah <br />Project. However, both the District <br />Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of <br />Appeals, which upheld the ruling of <br />the District Court, concluded that the <br />government had complied with all <br />applicable laws and that construction <br />of the Bonneville Unit of the Central <br />Utah Project could proceed. <br /> <br />Rainbow Bridge National Monument <br /> <br />The legal controversies over <br />Rainbow Bridge, discussed in prior <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />annual reports of the Board, <br />continued during 1974. The purpose <br />of the first suit was to limit the <br />elevation of Lake Powell, thus <br />reducing its usable storage capacity to <br />less than one-half of its design <br />capacity of 25 million acre feet. in <br />September, a group of Navajo Indians <br />opened a new Rainbow Bridge lawsuit <br />entitled Nakai Dit/'Oi, Et AI y Stamm, <br />Et A~ by filing a complaint against the <br />federal government in the U.S. District <br />Court for Utah. In addition to the <br />same issues raised in the first case the <br />court was requested to order the <br />defendants to cease further major <br />actions respecting operation of lake <br />Powell, including reservoir filling, until <br />an environmental impact statement <br />has been filed. The National <br />Environmental Policy Act became <br />effective prior to adoption of <br />long-range operating criteria for <br />Colorado River Reservoirs. <br /> <br />General legislation <br /> <br />Grand Canyon National Park <br />Enlargement <br /> <br />Legislation was passed by Congress <br />in late 1974 and signed by President <br />Ford on January 4, 1975, which <br />increased the size of Grand Canyon <br />National Park from 673,575 acres to <br />1,268,739 acres. The Park now <br />includes all of the lands formerly <br />within Grand Canyon National <br />Monument and Marble Canyon <br />National Monument, which were <br />abolished. It also includes the lower <br />portion of the Grand Canyon down to <br />the Grand Wash Cliffs, formerly <br />within the Lake Mead National <br />Recreational Area. The Havasupai <br />Indian Tribe received 185,000 acres of <br />land in trust, with severe restrictions <br />on the Tribe's use of the land. <br /> <br />The legislation preserves <br />Congressional authority relating to the <br />possible construction of a <br />hydroelectric project at the Bridge <br />Canyon (Hualapai) dam site. <br /> <br />Federal Water Rights Legislation <br /> <br />The u.s. Department of Justice <br />drafted a bill that provides for <br />quantification of water rights for <br />federal reserved lands, Indian <br />Reservations, and international treaty <br />commitments. The draft legislation <br />was released by the Water Resources <br />Council to the Interstate Conference <br />on Water Problems in July, with a <br />request that the Conference <br />coordinate the views of the states on <br />the legislation. The Board received a <br />copy for review and participated with <br />the Attorney General,' Department of <br />Water Resources, and the State Water <br />Resources Control Board in <br />developing the state's comments. <br />In October, the State Water <br />Resources Control Board conducted a <br />workshop on the proposed legislation, <br />and the Colorado River Board's Chief <br />Engineer presented a statement <br />identifying the Board's concern with <br />the bill. The statement concluded that <br />the proposed legislation would lead to <br />major protracted litigation on <br />Colorado River water rights with no <br />possible gain for California agencies <br />holding rights to Colorado River <br />water. <br /> <br />Red Rock lOwers over Colorado <br />River near Parker, Ariz. <br />