Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Title I Program <br />Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act <br /> <br />,..shall end the first year that the <br />Secretary delivers main stream Colorado <br />River water to California in an amount <br />less than the sum of the quantities <br />requested by (1) the California agencies <br />under contracts made pursuant to <br />section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project <br />Act (45 Stat. 1057) and (2) Federal <br />establishments to meet their water <br />rights acquired in California in <br />accordance with the Supreme Court <br />decree in Arizona against California <br />(376 U.S. 340). <br /> <br />Section 103(a) authorized construction, <br />operation, and maintenance of a well field, <br />known as the Protective and Regulatory <br />Pumping Unit (pRPU), capable of fur- <br />nishing approximately 160,000 acre-feet <br />of ground water annually for use in the <br />United States and for delivery to Mexico <br />as part of its 1.5-million-acre-foot annual <br />entitlement, <br /> <br />The language ofsection 101(c) was crafted <br />so that the Basin States would not be <br />deprived of any of their apportioned water: <br /> <br />Replacement ofthe reject stream from <br />the desalting plant and of any <br />Wellton-Mohawk drainage water <br />bypassed to the Santa Clara Slough to <br />accomplish essential operation except at <br />such times when there exists surplus <br />water of the Colorado River under the <br />terms of the Mexican Water Treaty of <br />1944, is recognized as a national <br />obligation as provided in section 202 of <br />the Colorado River Basin Project Act <br />(82 Stat. 895), <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />In enacting Title I, the Congress also sought <br />to advance United States desalting <br />technologies through construction and <br />operation of the desalting plant. <br /> <br />Herbert Brownell stated in his report on the <br />salinity problem: <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />The plant itself would materially assist <br />in the development of desalting <br />technology. The information and <br />experience gathered through it would be <br />of value in solving salinity problems <br />predicted to occur in the future <br />elsewhere in the United States and <br />Mexico. <br /> <br />Also, the benefit of the technical knowledge <br />gained by building the YDP was specifically <br />mentioned as a reason for supporting <br />Public Law 93-320 by Representatives <br />Harold T. Johnson of California, <br />Morris K Udall of Arizona, Paul W, Cronin <br />of Massachusetts, and David Towell of <br />Nevada during debate in the House of <br />Representatives on June 11, 1974, <br /> <br />Public Law 96-336, enacted on September 4, <br />1980, amended Public Law 93-320 by <br />adding provisions about (1) the power <br />source for the YDP and the PRPU and <br />(2) the mitigation offish and wildlife habitat <br />losses and by increasing the appropriations <br />ceiling, These amendments are discussed in <br />chapter III, <br />