CEPA 908/3-77-002
                      State & Local
                     Q/eriiagemen.1
                    Wctions  
-------
   EPA-908/3-77-002
              STATE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO REDUCE
                        COLORADO RIVER SALINITY
                               Prepared by

J. Gordon Milliken, Loretta C. Lohman, Stephen A. Lyon, George W. Sherk, Jr.

                      Industrial Economics Division
                        Denver Research Institute
                          University of Denver
                         Denver, Colorado  80208
                            Project Officer
                          Mr. George Collins
                        Contract No. 68-01-3578
                               March. 1978
                              Prepared for
              United States Environmental Protection Agency
                              Region VIII
                            Denver,  Colorado

-------
This report has been reviewed by EPA and approved
for publication.  Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
                 DISTRIBUTION

This document is available to the public through
the National Technical Information Service, Spring-
field, Virginia  22151.
                      ii

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


        We thank the members of our Advisory Board For this study,

Clyde 0. Martz, Esq., Mr. Leonard Rice, Mr. John W. Keys, III,

Mr. Myron Holburt, Mr. Ival V. Goslin, Mr. Paul I. Bortz, and

Mr. John S. Gilmore, for their advice and continuing assistance

during this research project.  Mr. John T. Maletic, Program Officer,

Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program, Bureau of Reclamation,

Denver, was a member of our Advisory Board until his untimely death

in March 1976.  The members of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control

Forum, and the Forum work group, contributed many suggestions and

offered valuable criticism throughout the study.  The U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation Colorado River Water Quality Control Office,  Denver,

contributed much technical information and explanation to the study

team.  Mr. George Collins,  EPA Region VIII Project Officer,  continually

supported and assisted us in our research efforts, and provided

much valuable advice to us.

        Within the Industrial Economics Division, Judy Farris

compiled much of the bibliography, and Trina Kauk, Barbara Barnard,

Cathy Henneman and Cindy Greenlee patiently and cheerfully typed

drafts and the final version of the report.
March 1978    •J- Gordon Milliken, Loretta C. Lohman
              Industrial Economics Division
              Denver Research Institute

              Stephen A. Lyon       George W. Sherk, Jr.
              Lyon, Collins & Co.   College of Law
                                    University of Denver
                                ill

-------
                             FOREWORD







        In September 1977, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,




Region VIII, published and distributed advance copies of the Denver




Research Institute  (DRI)  report, State and Local Management Actions




to Reduce Colorado River  Salinity.  At that time, EPA extended invi-




tations to a workshop held in Denver on December 5-6, 1977 in which




DRI presented major results of the study to 208 planning officials from




throughout the Colorado River Basin, to members of the Colorado River




Basin Salinity Control Forum ("The Forum") and to other state officials.




EPA officials also planned the workshop to include group discussion of




the report and of procedures for implementing salinity control measures




by state and local governments.




        The discussion at the workshop provided some additional infor-




mation on state and local circumstances that led Denver Research Institute




to refine or modify certain aspects of its findings.  Also, a few factual




errors in the report were identified.  Subsequently, representatives of




the Forum made a more thorough review of the report content and sent




written comments and suggestions to DRI.  These have been carefully re-




viewed and where appropriate incorporated into the final report.  The




issuance of this final report gives Denver Research Institute the oppor-




tunity to modify and extend its analysis to include some workshop




conclusions, to respond to additional review comments received after




advance report publication,  and to correct some factual or typographical




errors.




        The DRI report is not represented by DRI nor viewed by EPA and




Forum members as a final,  conclusive definition of state and local salinity
                                 IV

-------
control actions, but instead is considered as a current baseline for an




evolving process in which the states explore, adopt and implement actions




that will help reduce or control salinity within the Colorado River Basin.









                                 The Authors









March 1978
                                 v

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                              Page
List of Definitions, Abbreviations, and Equivalents  	    v

I.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	    1

II.   INTRODUCTION	   24

III.  OVERVIEW OF COLORADO RIVER BASIN
        SALINITY PROBLEM  	   30

IV.   ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTED STATE AND LOCAL
        MANAGEMENT ACTIONS	   62

V.    MANAGEMENT ACTIONS PROPOSED FOR IMPLEMENTATION	   94

VI.   ROLE OF 208 WASTEWATER PLANNING
        PROGRAMS IN CONTROLLING SALINITY  	  309


APPENDIX A - LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

APPENDIX B - BIBLIOGRAPHY:  SOURCES PERTAINING TO
               SALINITY CONTROL IN THE COLORADO RIVER

APPENDIX C - ACTIONS INVESTIGATED AND FOUND NOT
               FEASIBLE
                                -vo.

-------
       LIST OF DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND EQUIVALENTS
Definitions

Acre-foot  (ac.-ft., a.f.):  The quantity of water which if
          distributed uniformly over an area of one acre would be
          one foot deep

Animal unit month  (aum):  A measure of animal carrying capacity of
                          grazing land

208:  The areawide water quality planning process, or agency,
      specified in Section 208 of PL 92-500.
Abbreviations

ARS:  Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
ARS:  Arizona Revised Statutes
ASCS:  Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, USDA
BLM:  Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Dept. of the Interior
Ca. Adm.:  California Administrative Code
CEQA:  California Environmental Quality Act
CRB:  Colorado River Basin
CRS:  Colorado Revised Statutes
CRWQIP:  Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program
DEPAD:  Wyoming Department of Economic Planning and Development
EDS:  Environmental Data Statement  (California)
EIR:  Environmental Impact Report (California)
FAC, F&A:  California Food and Agricultural Code
F&G:  California Fish and Game Code
FTE:  Full-time equivalent
Gov.:  California Government Code
H&S:  California Health and Safety Code
maf:  million acre-feet
M&I:  Municipal and Industrial
mg/1:  milligrams per liter
MWD:  Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NMS/NMSA:  New Mexico Statutes Annotated
NPDES:  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRS:  Nevada Revised Statutes
O&M:  Operation and Maintenance
PL:  Public Law
ppm:  parts per million
Pub. R./Pub.  Res.:   California Public Resources Code
RC&D:  Rural Conservation and Development
SCS:  Soil Conservation Service, USDA
TDS:  Total dissolved solids
tns./yr.:  tons per year
                                  vii

-------
UCA:  Utah Code Annolau-d
USER:  Bureau of Reclamation, USDI
USDA:  U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI:  U.S. Department of the Interior
USGS:  Geological Survey, USDI
WC:  California Water Code
WS/WSA:  Wyoming Statutes Annotated
Equivalents
                 2
1 acre = 4046.9 m
                      3
1 acre-foot = 1233.5 m
                                viii

-------
                             CHAPTER I




                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY







Background of the Study




        Although beginning in the purest of snowmelt in the high




Rocky Mountains, the Colorado River (main stem) flows over 1,400




miles of weathering soils and rocks before it enters Mexico below




Yuma, Arizona.  The river and its tributaries dissolve minerals and




soluble salts from the river beds, and are further tainted by heavily




saline mineral springs fed by underground brines or by geologic salt




deposits leached by groundwater.  Dissolved and captured by storm




runoff from 242,000 square miles of river basin, salty residues col-




lect in the Colorado River, and the hot, dry climate concentrates




these salts through constant evaporation of pure river water.  Thus




the Colorado grows saltier and saltier as it flows southwest.  Had




man never set foot in the river basin, the Colorado would be saltier




than most other U.S. rivers have become after: heavy agricultural,




industrial and municipal development within their drainage areas.




        The Colorado River Basin, compared with other regions of the




United States, is undeveloped economically and is lightly and




relatively recently populated.  Yet it is developing and generally




craves further economic development.  Agriculture, heavily dependent




on irrigated farming and livestock grazing, has existed for over a




century.   Although industry is sparser and newer than in most of the




U.S., the rich mineral and energy resource deposits have stimulated




rapid development, characterized by heavy water use and the generation

-------
of various mineral/salt wastes.  Finally, although municipal devel-




opment adds relatively little salinity, the states of the Colorado




River Basin are growing in population more rapidly than the U.S.




average.  For all of these reasons, further development in the basin




will add salinity to the Colorado River.




        The seven states of the Colorado River Basin (Arizona,




California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) have




in recent years agreed to cooperate to promote a basinwide program




for control of river salinity.  The states recognize that a unified




water quality control program, aided by substantial federal government




cooperation, offers the best hope for realizing their dual objectives:




control of salinity in the lower Colorado main stem at or below 1972




levels; and continued development of compact-apportioned waters, particu-




larly by the four states of the upper basin.   To reach both objectives re-




quires that efforts be made to reduce or eliminate some existing sources of




salinity to compensate for the inevitable increases in salinity that




will accompany development after 1972.  The federal government is




contributing to the reduction of some salinity through implementation




of the "structural" actions called for in PL 93-320, the Colorado




River Basin Salinity Control Act, and through numerous administrative,




planning and control activities.







Purpose and Scope of Study




        Since state and local governments also recognize their re-




sponsibility to assist in the reduction of salinity, the U.S. Environ-




mental Protection Agency decided in 1975 to engage a research contractor

-------
to analyze state and local management actions, on behalf of the

seven basin states.  The objectives of the study were:

        To develop and analyze a series of management actions
        which may be taken state-by-state to reduce salinity
        of the Colorado River.  These actions, which are to
        be developed in coordination with members of the
        Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, are limited
        to those which may be taken by each of the governments
        of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,
        Utah, and Wyoming and their political subdivisions.
        All actions discussed, as well as selected combinations
        of actions, will be evaluated as to benefit, qualitative
        estimate of cost, and overall feasibility.  Only actions
        which may be taken within the scope of existing legis-
        lation will be considered . . .

The essential prerequisite for implementing a desalinization policy

within the existing institutional framework is to explore various

mixtures of federal and state sanctions and incentives, to determine

their relative effectiveness, and to identify those mixtures which

can do the most to solve present and anticipated problems.  That is

the goal of this research study.


Selection Criteria

        Early in the study the investigators developed a list of over

30 possible state and local management actions that appeared likely

to reduce salinity loading in the Colorado River Basin.  This list

served as a structure for interviews, as well as a basis for review

of statutes, rules and regulations, and technical documents.  During

the course of the study the actions were discussed and amended.  The

final list, after some consolidation, contained 33 possible actions.

These possible actions then were judged according to pre-established

selection criteria.  The criteria covered administrative and technical

-------
feasibility, cost,  legality,  need,  effectiveness in salinity control,




scope of applicability,  and political and social implications.




        Of the original  33 possible actions considered,  analysis




according to the selection criteria resulted in the following




categorization:




        • 12 actions have been proposed  as recommendations  for




          state  action.   Some of  these are partially or  fully




          underway  in several of  the states,  thus providing




          guidance  for implementation elsewhere.  These  actions




          are legal,  or  at least  not prohibited by  law.   They




          appear technically,  economically and  politically  pos-




          sible  to  implement;  and they appear effective  in  con-




          trolling,  to some degree,  certain causes  of  salinity.




          These  actions  are listed  and briefly  discussed in the




          following  section.




        • 9  of the possible management actions  were determined




          to be  already  underway  in the  Colorado River Basin.  It




          was judged  that  the  increased  application of these




          actions would  occur  naturally,  with little if  any need




          for additional  intervention by state  or local  governments.




        • 7  actions have been  determined infeasible in the  Colorado




          River  Basin  following application of  these criteria,




          for various  reasons  of  illegality,  ineffectiveness in




          controlling  salinity, excessive costs and difficulty




          of  implementation, political conflicts greater  than

-------
          estimated benefits, or because such action was

          simply unnecessary.

        • 5 actions have been determined to be out-of-scope

          for this study.  These actions may be effective in

          reducing salinity but are considered by both EPA

          and Denver Research Institute as being outside

          the jurisdiction of this research project.


Actions Proposed for Implementation in the Colorado River Basin

        The following 12 management actions, proposed to be taken

by state and local agencies, meet most or all of the criteria discussed

above.  The actions are believed feasible in some or all of the seven

states of the Colorado River Basin.  Accompanying comments give a

brief overview and perspective as to the feasibility of adoption and

the potential effectiveness of each action in controlling salinity.

        I.  Regulate irrigation water use so that the water
            rights holder reduces excess use and implements
            waste control measures.  This may be done by:
            (a) Direct action by the agency administering
                water rights, to limit or control amounts
                of water diverted if waste occurs; or
            (b) Imposing sanctions by the State Engineer,
                irrigation district or other appropriate
                agency, on water users using excessive
                amounts of water.

        Action #1 is proposed as a means of reducing the excess applica-

tion of water in irrigated agriculture on soils where excess water use

causes leaching of excess salt.  It is proposed for implementation in

four of the basin states.  In California, the Colorado River Basin is

close to salt balance, so Action #1 would have little effect on salt

loading.  In Nevada, there is little irrigation and market forces are

naturally accomplishing what the action proposes.  In Wyoming, the law

is too limited in authority to support the action.  In other states, although

-------
 the actions  are  legal  they would be a significant departure  from

 present administrative practice and would be viewed with hostility

 by many irrigators.  An  evolutionary approach to the action  is

 proposed,  limited  at first to  the most clear-cut cases of excessive

 water use.   Implementation would occur gradually, accompanied by

 needed increases in personnel, training in new enforcement standards

 and an accompanying public information program designed to enlist

 irrigator  cooperation  to control water waste.  It is likely  that

 within a few years, substantial savings in water use could be achieved.

 This should  reduce salinity, so long as the water savings occur  on

 saline irrigated lands (rather than lands in salt balance) and so

 long as the  water  saved is not used to bring new lands into  irrigated

 agriculture.

         2.   Through the federally funded 208 wastewater plan-
             ning programs, establish salinity as a priority
             item to be dealt with and develop a series of
             local  and/or state corrective actions.

         Action #2  proposes that the 208 wastewater management planning

 programs throughout the Colorado River Basin define various  salinity

 control actions that could be implemented by local and state agencies,

 and  thus promote and coordinate implementation of the other  actions

 proposed in  this report.   Once the 208 plan is approved by state govern-

 ments and by EPA,  the  designated 208 agencies that have legal

 and administrative jurisdiction will be expected to carry out the plan.

Any 208  recommendations for salinity control must have a management

agency designated responsibility for implementation.   Such management

agency may be a state agency rather than a local government unit.

-------
A number of the proposed salinity control actions are likely to

require state action, and the 208 plan can identify the need and

build the justification for the state to undertake the action.

        The integration of salinity control actions with 208 planning

actions is recommended in all seven states of the basin.  The effec-

tiveness of Action #2 is very difficult to predict, and varies with

the local area's need for salinity control and the nature of the

source of salinity.  Besides calling attention to the salinity

control measure and designating a responsible agency, the 208 plan

can help implement proposed measures by:  (a) influencing the

NPDES permit system; and (b) influencing the approval or disapproval

of wastewater treatment construction grants.

        3.  Because of the need for an integrated approach to
            salinity control programs, utilize an existing state
            agency  (or establish such an agency) to coordinate
            and promote salinity control actions by different
            state institutions.

        Action #3 is based on the belief that if salinity control is

to be achieved in the Colorado River Basin states, it must be given

a high priority and central coordination by state governments.  The

key to this approach rests with members of the Colorado River Basin

Salinity Control Forum whose specialized knowledge of salinity and

influence with their state's governors (who usually appoint them) would be

used to promote gubernatorial designation of a central agency respons-

ible for coordinating state salinity control efforts.  The agency

might develop a series of policies, administrative actions and/or

coordinating procedures to assure that salinity control priority is

-------
achieved.  Action #3 is feasible and is proposed for implementation

in five of the basin states.  The action is not recommended for

California, where it would add little if any strength to the existing

salinity control effort in the Basin, or for Nevada where the Divi-

sion of Colorado River Resources serves much the same purpose of

coordination.

        4.  Require minimum standards for water well con-
            struction, and require plugging of abandoned water
            wells and exploratory drill holes to avoid contami-
            nation of groundwater strata.

        Action #4 proposes extending and strengthening state standards

on well drilling and on exploratory drilling (e.g.,  for mineral

exploration or seismic investigation) to require plugging.   This is

intended to avoid mixing of fresh and saline strata  that will result

in contamination of groundwater,  and ultimately surface water also.

In five of the basin states,  Action #4 is  believed  likely to intensify

and expand control over salinity contamination of groundwater,  primarily

as a result of increased enforcement personnel.  However, in California,

New Mexico and Utah,  Action #4 appears to  be adequately inrolemented

already,  and in California it has little or no potential for further

salinity  control.


        5.  To reduce salinity from agriculture, use irrigation
            return flow in nonagricultural areas; e.g., for
            power plant cooling.  Utilize energy facility siting
            procedures to encourage the use of low quality waters
            where the water requirements of such facilities could
            be met utilizing saline and other low quality waters.

        Action #5 proposes to use saline and other low quality waters,

including saline agricultural return flows, in energy development and

other consumptive uses rather than letting them grow increasingly

saline through continuous irrigation use.   There are identified low

-------
 quality  waters  throughout the basin (primarily from natural  sourros

 in the upper basin)  which could be used in this way,  leaving better

 quality  waters  in the Colorado River.   However,  the practicality  of

 Action #5  depends on local conditions.   California  now  successfully

 uses  power plant  siting regulations to  assure  that  plants  locate

 near  sources of poor quality water,  and use such water  for industrial

 (cooling)  processes.   Nevada uses  sewage effluent for nower

 plant cooling.  Other states of the basin do not always have

 the legal  authority and  the  favorable locational  factors that exist

 in California,  but consideration of Action  #5  is  proposed  in all of

 the basin  states  as a  promising salinity  control  measure where con-

 ditions  are  appropriate.

         6.   Through land  use  controls,  prohibit  (or limit)
             irrigated  agriculture on lands  with high natural
             salt  content  in  soils and subsoils, and select
             new lands  for irrigation having soils and sub-
             soils that will  contribute  reduced salt loads  to
             irrigation return flow.

         All  of  the Colorado  River Basin states have passed  land use

 legislation.  Only six of  these states, however,  still have  such legis-

 lation in  effect as a  1974 referendum in  Utah  repealed its  land use

 law.

         Under the existing land use laws  of  the  states in  the study

 region,  numerous different agencies appear  to  have  sufficient authority

 to implement actions designed to reduce the  salinity  loading of the

 Colorado River  Basin.  Several states mandate  state control  of "areas

 of state interest."  Such  areas include environmental concern areas,

hazard areas, etc.  If specific soil types,  the irrigation  of which

would cause  continued  increases in the  salinity load  of the  river,

-------
 should be classified  as  areas  of  state  interest  their use  could




 be regulated.



         State  land  use laws which prohibit new agricultural use,  and




 encourage the  cessation  of existing irrigated agriculture  on  lands




 having a high  natural salt content would decrease the amount  of




 salinity resulting  from  the irrigation  of such lands.  For this to




 be done in states desiring to maintain  agricultural production,




 land use regulations  should encourage new development of agriculture




 on lands having  lower natural  salt loads.  This would, of  course,




 be dependent on  the availability  of such lands within the  states




 of the study region.




         The primary problem with Action #6 is that it may  not be




 politically feasible  to  implement, at least on currently irrigated




 farmland.   An  implementation strategy, however, which would phase




 out irrigated  agriculture on lands with high natural salt  levels over




 a  multi-year period may be an acceptable means of implementing the




 proposed action.  This strategy would consider irrigated agriculture




 in prohibited  areas (e.g., areas where salt levels in soils exceed




 specific levels) a nonconforming use.  These nonconforming uses




 would be  curtailed over a time period adequate in length to allow




 amortization of the costs of the facilities being removed  from produc-




 tion.   Such a  strategy may require that specific landowners be




 compensated for loss of land values.




        Although Action #6 is proposed in all of the states of the




basin (even Utah, where action could be taken only at the  county and
                               10

-------
local level) it is recognized that the potential feasibility is

severely limited by major political and administrative obstacles,

and that even limited implementation is relatively unlikely in the

immediate future.

        7.  Through state economic incentives, promote conversion
            of land used for irrigated agriculture to other uses
            when highly saline return flows cannot be prevented,
            controlled or treated and encourage the modification
            of vegetation on rangeland (e.g., convert sagebrush
            to grassland) to reduce natural salinity from storm
            runoff.

        Action #7 proposes the use of state economic incentives

to stimulate changes in land use to reduce salinity.  The proposed

action contrasts with Action #6, which proposes to reach the same

goals through the use of governmental sanctions:  land use restric-

tions, zoning prohibitions, and similar regulatory actions.

        Three forms of economic incentive have been identified,

although there probably are others that could be used:

        (a) Direct economic incentives, such as reductions in

            state income taxes or local property tax exemptions

            to landowners who voluntarily change land uses from

            those causing a high degree of salinity to other uses.

            A more direct incentive, of course, is an offer to

            purchase land for conversion to a new use causing less

            salinity.  While it is conceivable that a state govern-

            ment might itself purchase land, it is more likely to

            act as a catalyst to promote sales of land to private

            interests such as industry or energy developers.  This
                                11

-------
             could be done  in connection with a state business

             or  industrial  development agency which normally

             encourages and assists industrial firms to locate

             in  the  state.

         (b)  A state grant  or loan fund to landowners to en-

             courage changes in land use, e.g., from irrigated

             agriculture to less intensive agriculture (perhaps

             dryland farming or grazing), or to persons purchasing

             irrigated land for conversion to a new use (such as

             residential development, industrial use, etc.).

         (c)  An  incentive payment to landowners to encourage modi-

             fication of vegetation that would reduce natural saline

             runoff.  Mechanical uprooting or chemical treatment

             of  sagebrush,  followed by planting of native grasses,

             would be rewarded by a cash payment or a tax reduction.

         Because of  the unpopularity of legal sanctions by government,

particularly among  farmers and ranchers whose freedom to use their land

is  threatened,  the  use of economic incentives appears to offer a far

more acceptable way to bring about salinity reductions.  Questions of

authority to encroach on property rights are bypassed, and actions are

taken voluntarily, with the economic costs shared among all state

residents.

        Nevertheless,  there are evident concerns over the role of the

state in bringing about salinity reduction through actions which
              /
negatively affect the agricultural sector, and the processing, trans-

portation and supply sectors dependent on them.


                                12

-------
        There also is likely  to be state hesitation  to  fully fund a

grant or incentive payment program when analogous  federal programs

(e.g., ASCS, RC&D) pay 50 to  75 percent of  the  cost.

        In summary, Action #7a  (tax incentives  and promotion of land

purchases) is partially underway in Arizona and Utah, possible in

Nevada, and unlikely in the other states.  Action  #7b (state grant

or loan fund) is operational  in New Mexico, Utah,  and Wyoming but

questionable in the other four states.  Action  #7c (encouraging vege-

tation modification) appears  possible in Nevada but questionable else-

where for a variety of reasons.

        8.  Establish special use charges for irrigation water
            provided from reclamation projects  to  cause more
            efficient usage and to encourage waste control
            measures.  Use excess funds derived to finance
            waste control capital improvements  on  farms and
            in the conveyance systems.

        Action #8 has the underlying assumption that if the amount

of irrigation water diverted  and applied is kept to  the minimum,

salinity from agricultural sources will also be kept at a minimum.

This action further assumes that higher costs per  quantity of water

used will cause the amount diverted to be kept  at  the minimum needed

for the crop.

        Initiation of this action would rest with  the local irrigation

and/or water conservation districts.  The greatest results in terms of

salinity reduction would be achieved in areas where  irrigation return

flows are a source of increased salinity, such  as  in areas of Mancos

Shale.

        In implementing Action #8, at least three  different approaches

might be utilized.  The first approach is to establish  special use

                                 13

-------
 charges  that would  raise  the unit cost of irrigation water  to  a  level




 that will  reduce  demand to the bare minimum necessary  for crop produc-




 tion,  yet  not  endanger the economic health of the farms served.   Be-




 cause of the variations in farm prices, costs and water needs  of




 various  crops,  this level may be very difficult to calculate.




         A  second  approach is to determine the amount of water  needed in




 a given  year for  a  given crop and retain current charges for that




 quantity of water use.  However, water usage above the pre-determined




 amount would incur  special use charges to discourage the unneeded usage.




         A  third and perhaps simplest form of approach is that  used in




 California's Imperial Irrigation District—to measure the amount  of




 tailwater  and,  if it exceeds 15 percent of the water delivered,  a




 penalty  charge  is assessed.  In the Imperial District example, the




 water  cost triples.




         The intent  of this action is not to raise additional dollars




 for  local  water delivery districts; it is designed to reduce unnecessary




 water  consumption.  It is possible to design a water rate structure that




 would  not  change  a  district's total revenue from delivered water, but




 this would be particularly difficult to calculate in the first year




 of implementation.  Any increased revenue from water deliveries  could




 be spent on conveyance system improvements or on-farm improvements.




 Ideally, the farmer who reduces water use to the minimum needed  for crop




 growth would not  suffer any out of pocket loss overall and might  even




 save money; only  those who persist in over-application of water would




pay more.
                                 14

-------
        Generally, Action #8 appears legally feasible throughout the

basin.  As a salinity control measure,  it would be most effective in

areas of saline  soil subject to excess  water application which causes

saline irrigation return flows to  the Colorado River or its tributaries.

Thus Action #8 would have little effect in Arizona or Nevada  (because of

the limited amount of irrigation return flow reaching the Colorado,

although future  development in Arizona  may increase the potential for

Action #8), or California  (because the  irrigated lands are moving

toward salt balance), or New Mexico or  Wyoming (because currently

irrigated lands  are relatively low in salts).  In Colorado and Utah,

where the action has a relatively  high  potential effectiveness,

Action #8 would  encounter severe political opposition which may well

exceed the motivation of those states to control salinity from agri-

cultural sources.


        9.   By use of state economic incentives,  promote con-
            version of marginal agricultural  water to other
            uses, or increase irrigation efficiency,  to reduce
            or eliminate salinity resulting from irrigation
            return flows.

        Recognizing the resistance of the agricultural sector to

sanctions or administrative regulation of water use as a means of con-

trolling salinity,  this action proposes state economic incentives

designed to stimulate voluntary actions by irrigators.  There is some

equity in the proposal,  which avoids placing the major financial

burden of salinity control on the agricultural irrigators and instead

spreads the burden over all state residents by using state tax monies

to finance improvements.
                                 15

-------
         State grant or loan fund.   One form of economic incentive




 would be to establish a state grant or loan fund to  supplement




 federal programs of cost sharing to finance on-farm  improvements pro-




 moting irrigation efficiency.   New Mexico,  Utah and  Wyoming now




 have grant or loan programs for this purpose.




         Establish an agency to trade in  water  rights.   Under one




 proposal the state government  would establish  an agency to  trade in




 water rights,  buying lower  value water rights  from marginal agricultural




 lands,  and excess water rights from farmers.   The rights would be held




 and later sold for higher valued uses.   The proposal envisions an




 agency with a probable dual purpose of economic development and con-




 trol of salinity.   This agency should  be able  to acquire water rights




 or excess water from certain agricultural users and  sell the rights




 to nonagricultural users or to  agricultural lands with  low  salinity.




 As only willing seller-willing  buyer  transactions would occur,  there




 would be no undue coercion  on  the  land owner.   The agency,  of course,




 would require  adequate appropriations, particularly  in  the  early years.




         In all Colorado River  Basin states, there is no statutory




 authority to  create such an agency.  However,  in all states there is




 an existing agency which has adequate  powers to acquire water in the




 best  interests of  the  state.




         Throughout  the West, implementation of this  action  could be




 restricted  by  legal problems regarding transferability  of water,




 statutes  requiring basin-of-origin  protection,  need  to  protect  the




 rights of junior appropriators,  etc.




        Action  #9a  (state grant  or  loan  fund)  would  primarily contri-




bute to salinity control in  the  upper  basin states,  because  of  soil



                                16

-------
conditions and the nature of irrigation return flow.  Three of the

states already have some form of grant or loan fund, and an increase

in funding would permit expansion of its effectiveness.  In Colorado,

there is little evidence of legislative willingness to establish such

a program.

        Action #9b (agency to trade in water rights) also would be

useful as a salinity control measure primarily in the upper basin.

It is less needed in New Mexico and Wyoming because irrigation re-

turn flow is not perceived as a major contributor to salinity.  The

concept has promise in Colorado (once legal barriers are overcome).

In Utah it is legally and administratively feasible but requires

state direction to overcome potentially heavy political resistance.

        10.  Administratively modify leases of state lands (at
             time of lease or renewal) to prohibit agricultural
             practices which cause erosion or excess runoff of
             saline water, and to improve the land to reduce
             runoff by:  prohibiting agriculture or grazing on
             certain soil types, restricting grazing intensity,
             and modifying vegetation on rangeland to reduce
             salinity from runoff.

        There are several different actions which could be taken to

reduce salinity loading resulting from the use of state lands.  Grazing

leases, for example, could be conditioned to prevent over-grazing in

areas where such over-grazing would substantially disturb the topsoil.

Subsequent rains and the resultant runoff from such lands return

highly saline waters to the stream system.

        If state lands were leased for irrigated agriculture, condi-

tional leases requiring efficient agricultural practices would

result in a reduction of irrigation return flows.  This would result
                                17

-------
 in a reduction of both  the  quantities of water required  and  the

 salinity level of the Colorado River.  Such conditional  agricultural

 leases could  require  specific methods of irrigation  (sprinkler or

 trickle instead of flood or ditch-and-furrow).  The  production of

 specific crops could  be encouraged by lease rates.

         Action #10 is not appropriate for California or  Nevada,  as

 no state lands are currently being leased within the Colorado River

 Basin portion of  those  states, for agricultural or grazing purposes.

 The action seems  reasonably feasible in the other states; however, the

 critical constraint on  a system of conditional leases of state land

 is enforcement.   The  ability of state land agencies  in the states of

 the Colorado  River Basin to administer a system of conditional leases

 is essential  to the overall success of such a program.  Without  the

 reality of  enforcement, a conditional lease system may prove to  be

 relatively  ineffective.

         Politically,  the imposition of any new constraints in state

 land  leases is likely to be resisted by the agricultural interests

 who consider  state lease renewals almost as a property right and under-

 standably object to lease provisions that increase their operating

 expenses.

         11.  To reduce salinity from municipal sources, regulate
             salt loading appliances such as water softeners.

        This action has been classified "feasible—but of limited

applicability" because of the generally limited contribution of  salt

loading appliances to the salt load in the Colorado River.   Home water

softeners, used to reduce the mineral hardness of water supplies, are
                                18

-------
recharged periodically by an ion exchange process, using a concentrated




solution of common table salt.  After recharge, the used salt is dis-




charged to the sewer system.  An industry source estimates total salt




loading from water softeners throughout the Colorado River Basin as




less than 1.7 ppm of a total (1972) loading of 879 ppm at Imperial Dam.




        Salinity control can be accomplished in any of three ways:




water can be centrally softened; regeneration of softening systems




can be handled centrally by exchange of cylinders; or on-site regenerative




salt use efficiency can be optimized.  The first two options provide




administrative control over salt loads, avoiding disposal that will




return to the river; while salt use efficiency provides savings in




salt costs as well as a reduction in (but not elimination of) salt




loading.




        Because of the relative hardness of the water, water softeners




are most used in Nevada and California among the basin states.  In




Arizona, because bottled water is commonly used instead of household




water softeners and because municipal wastewater is consumed by




downstream agriculture or by municipal irrigation of parks rather than




returned to the Colorado River, state officials do not consider salt




loading appliances to be a significant salinity problem.  Because salt




loading appliances are not yet a significant source of salinity in




most parts of the Colorado River Basin, Action #11 is presented as a




potential action which cities, counties or even states have the ability




to implement locally when the need arises.
                                 19

-------
         12.   To reduce salinity  from industrial  sources,  require
              reuse of wastewater to  reduce  industrial  water demand.

         Water reuse is a  fact  of life in  the  seven  Colorado River Basin

 states.   It  has been pointed out correctly  that  almost all  Colorado

 River water  is reused by  downstream  appropriators as it passses  through

 the system.   The existing de facto water  reuse system  is  based primarily

 on agricultural,  municipal and industrial return flows.

         Action #12,  which has  been classified "partially  underway—

 extension feasible," addresses itself  to  more specific aspects of

 water reuse;  especially to those which have arisen  as  a result of the

 no-salt  return standards  being applied to the river.   A "Policy  for

 Implementation of the Colorado River  Salinity Standards Through  the

 NPDES Permit  Program" was adopted by  the  Colorado River Basin Salinity

 Control  Forum on February 28,  1977.  The  policy, which has  been  ac-

 cepted by EPA,  amplifies  the standards for industrial  and municipal

 sources  of salinity.   The goal for industry is "a no salt return

 policy whenever  practicable,"  and is the  policy  for all new indus-

 trial sources.

         Some  types of  reuse included in this action are recycling

 of wastewater within  an industrial plant, diversion of highly saline

 waters,  from natural  or agricultural sources, for certain industrial

 uses;  and use of wastewater treatment  plant effluent for  industrial

 purposes.  Not only will  these forms of water reuse reduce  industrial

 demands on high quality water  supplies, they also will  alleviate some

problems in the NPDES permit system by eliminating some portion  of un-

desirable discharges to the river.  The action contemplates  that
                                20

-------
water either would be reused to total consumption, or reused until




it becomes unsuitable for further industrial use and then disposed




of in an evaporation pond.  Such reuse will make more efficient use




of scarce water, and thus will help effectuate the Colorado River Basin




Salinity Control Forum's policy of no salt return to the river




wherever practicable.






Impacts of Proposed Actions on Parties-at-Interest




        One of the selection criteria for the management actions




proposed in this report relates to political acceptability:  "Any




action which would overcome implementation obstacles should be




generally acceptable to all parties involved . . . and particularly




to those most greatly affected."  The authors of this report have,




by consensus judgment, analyzed the impacts that application of




each of the various proposed actions would have on the various




parties-at-interest, i.e., one of several identifiable groups of




persons whose common interests are affected or impacted.




        The analysis (see Figure 5-1, page 307) reveals that certain




parties-at-interest are favorably impacted by nearly every action




recommended.  This is true of water quality agencies and federal




government agencies, both of which logically can be expected to favor




the implementation of any state and local management action that will




decrease river salinity.  Environmentalists also tend to favor most




salinity control actions, except for those which negatively impact




wildlife habitat (e.g., modifying natural vegetation on rangeland) or




which appear likely to promote power plant or energy development.
                                21

-------
 Construction  firms  logically will favor many of the actions which




 potentially may  involve new structures; only land use actions




 prohibiting development will negatively impact construction firms.




         One very important constituency in the Colorado Basin—ir-




 rigated  agriculture—is threatened or potentially impacted unfavorably




 by several proposed actions.  Since nearly all (97 percent of) man-




 made  salinity has a source in irrigated agriculture, it is inevitable




 that  most proposed corrective actions will interfere with or add




 costs to the operations of the agricultural sector.  Other actions,




 such  as  the federal 208 program, are judged as having a negative




 impact because of the change envisaged by some of the impacted




 parties.  This does not preclude achievement of positive attitudes




 or the eventual welcoming of federal participation, but it does




 mean  that considerable educational effort providing reassurance will




 be necessary before achieving positive attitudes and cooperation




 from  some of the parties-at-interest.




         Generally, the only actions which are not judged as negative




 by irrigators are those involving economic incentives rather than




 sanctions.  In other words, the irrigated agricultural sector does




 not appear likely to accept new salinity control policies except by




 a  voluntary choice in response to an economic reward, presumably pro-




vided by state government.  Authority exists for numerous actions




 involving sanctions or regulations by state and local governments,




but the feasibility of such actions depends on the willingness of




the states to face agricultural opposition.  This seems to vary




among states,  depending on their policies of supporting agriculture vs.
                                22

-------
industrial and energy development, and also on the states'  per-




ceptions of the seriousness of the salinity problem.
                                 23

-------
                             CHAPTER II




                            INTRODUCTION






 Background  of  the Study




         Although  beginning in the purest  of  snowmelt  in  the  high




 Rocky Mountains,  the Colorado River (main stem)  grows saltier  and




 saltier  as  it  flows  southwest.   Had man never  set  foot in  the




 river basin, the  Colorado would  be saltier than  most  other U.S.




 rivers have become after heavy agricultural, industrial  and




 municipal development within their drainage  areas.





        The Colorado River Basin, compared with other regions of the




United States,  is undeveloped economically and is lightly and




relatively recently populated.  Yet it is developing and generally




craves further economic development.  Agriculture, heavily dependent




on irrigated farming and livestock grazing, has existed for over a




century.   Although industry is sparser and newer than in most of the




U.S., the rich mineral and energy resource deposits have stimulated




rapid development, characterized by heavy water use and the generation




of various mineral/salt wastes.  Finally, although municipal devel-




opment adds relatively little salinity, the states of the Colorado




River Basin are growing in population more rapidly than the U.S.




average.   For all of these reasons, further development in the basin




will add salinity to the Colorado River.




        The development pressures in the seven states of the Colorado




River Basin (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah,




and Wyoming) are constrained by the shortage of water.  After decades
                                24

-------
of competition, often violent, over the rights to water, the states




reached an accord—the Colorado River Compact of 1922—which divided




the river flow into upper and lower basin allocations.  (These have




been subsequently divided into state shares:   the Upper Colorado




River Compact established shares for Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,




and Utah; the courts allocated shares among Arizona,  California and




Nevada.)




        Despite a fundamental conflict of interests,  particularly be-




tween the upper basin states and those of the lower basin,  the states




have in recent years agreed to cooperate to promote a basin-wide




program for control of river salinity.  It is feared that,  without




interstate cooperation, the implementation of federal water pollution




control legislation might jeopardize additional desired development




in both the upper and lower basins of the Colorado, and conceivably




might create stresses that would breach the 1922 Compact, with un-




predictable but grave results.  The states recognize that  a unified




water quality control program, aided by substantial federal govern-




ment cooperation, offers the best hope for realizing their  dual objec-




tives:   control of salinity in the lower Colorado main stem at or




below 1972 levels; and continued development of apportioned waters




by the seven states of the river basin.




        As described later (in the fourth section of Chapter III),




the seven basin states began in 1966 a series of conferences concern-




ing the relationship between proposed water quality standards and the




future development of apportioned Colorado River water.  By 1973, the
                                25

-------
 states agreed on a mechanism for interstate cooperation and established

 the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.*  The Forum, made up

 of representatives of the seven states, is charged with carrying out

 "the most appropriate plan of implementation for salinity control for

 the Colorado River system."  This plan of implementation is stated in

 a 1975 document.   The Forum document includes an extensive list of

 actions to be taken to reduce or control salinity, together with a

 schedule and an indication of the entity responsible for taking each

 action.  Among the "research and special studies actions," are the

 following:^

                                                              Entities
                                                           Responsible for
         Action to be Taken                Timing           Taking Action

   Identify and evaluate state water    October 1977       Each basin state
   resources management programs,
   policies and regulations and assess
   them for the purpose of identifying
   where they can be redirected toward
   salinity control policy

   Identify recommended changes in      October 1978       Each basin state
   water resources programs,  regula-
   tions and policies


Purpose  and  Scope  of  Study

         In furtherance of  the  two actions named above, the U.S.

Environmental  Protection Agency  decided  in 1975 to  engage a research
        *Public Law  92-500, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972,  directed the EPA Administrator to encourage cooperative
activities by the states for the prevention, reduction, and elimination
of pollution. (Section 103.a.)

        -^Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Proposed Water
Quality Standards for Salinity Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of
Implementation for Salinity Control, [n.p.] June 1975.  The standards
apply to the mainstream and tributaries of the Colorado above Imperial T)am.


        2Ibid.,  p.  117.
                                  26

-------
 contractor to analyze state and  local management  actions,  on behalf

 of the seven basin states.   The  objectives  of  the study were:

         To develop and analyze a series  of  management  actions
         which may be taken  state-by-state to reduce  salinity
         of the Colorado River.   These actions, which are to
         be developed in coordination with members of the
         Colorado River Basin Salinity Control  Forum, are limited
         to those which may  be taken  by each of the governments
         of Arizona,  California,'  Colorado, Nevada,  New  Mexico,
         Utah,  and Wyoming and their  political  subdivisions.
         All actions  discussed, as well as selected combinations
         of actions,  will be evaluated as to benefit, qualitative
         estimate of  cost, and overall feasibility.   Only actions
         which may be taken  within the scope of existing legis-
         lation will  be considered.   The  potential actions  con-
         sidered feasible for adoption will  be  presented at a
         workshop for Forum  members and 208  planning  officials of
         the seven affected  states.
 Summary of Methodology

        The methodology of this study, as contractually specified by

 EPA,  included, but was not limited to, legal reviews of existing

 authorities, personal interviews with appropriate state administrators

 and quantification of man-years of state effort actually provided in

 [1976] to the execution of various regulations, programs and policies.

 The criteria for prioritizing the recommendations included the fol-

 lowing elements:   (1) the "costs" of any action in terms of additional

 manpower, etc.;  (2)  the "benefits" in terms of potential quantity of

 water saved and  salt withheld from the river system.

        The study contractor was directed to identify ongoing, regu-

 latory and administrative water resources, agricultural and land use

 programs, regulations and policies in each of the states of Arizona,

California,  Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and

assess these for the purpose of identifying those that could most

                                 27

-------
cost-effectively be redirected toward the salinity policy identified




in 40 CFR 120.5 (EPA Regulation, "Colorado River System Salinity




Standards and Implementation Plan," December 1974).




        The evaluation was to address both surface and groundwater




management programs, regulations and policies that are currently




being carried out by duly constituted agencies, commissions and




boards of each state's executive branch of government.




        Two facets of the problem were to be considered:  (1) measures




that will result in more efficient water use, and therefore, less




water use per unit of production; and (2) measures that will result




in a reduction of total dissolved solids discharged to surface waters.




        During the conduct of this work, the contractor was instructed




to maintain continuing liaison with members of the Colorado River




Basin Salinity Control Forum, to promote communication and obtain




the opinions of the states' representatives on the Forum concerning




proposed actions relating to state salinity policy.




        For each state, the contractor was to identify what actions




or changes in operating practices or procedures, policies, and




regulations in the three broad areas of water resources, agriculture




and land use could most cost-effectively be executed without the need




for additional legislation.




        The output of each state study was specified to be a report




that identifies a priority list of specific actions or redirections




needed to meet the Colorado River Basin policy, the agency respon-




sible for executing the action, the existing legal authority (if




so constituted) and the opportunities for decreasing salt input






                                 28

-------
and minimizing water use.  In developing the list of priority actions,




the concepts of best management practices and best available treat-




ment as conceptualized in Section 304 of Public Law 92-500 and as




described or quantified in recent publications, were to be considered.




        There clearly is a need for developing a basin-wide management




strategy which implements present salt control capabilities.  Federal




statutes and regulations are limited in their scope and effectiveness.




State statutes and regulations, which supplement federal powers,




provide an independent source of authority but vary among states in




power,  effectiveness and scope.  In addition to the power to impose




sanctions against those who do not adhere to salinity control regula-




tions,  there may be authority to offer incentives to those who do.




The essential prerequisite for implementing a desalinization policy




within the existing institutional framework is to explore various




mixtures of federal and state sanctions and incentives, to determine




their relative effectiveness, and to identify those mixtures which




can do the most to solve present and anticipated problems.  That is




the goal of this research study.
                                 29

-------
                             CHAPTER III

          OVERVIEW OF COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY PROBLEM


 Basinwide Salinity

         The  Colorado River (main stem)  extends for 1,400  miles  from

 its  origin in Colorado until it  reaches the Mexican border near

 Yuma,  Arizona.   The  Colorado and its tributaries  drain  a  primarily

 arid and semiarid river basin of 242,000 square miles in  the  south-

 western United States.   The salt content of the river increases

 downstream because its tributary streams flow over soils  and  rocks

 which,  because of the arid climate,  are less intensively  weathered

 than soils in more humid regions,  and because of  flow into the

 Colorado River system from highly saline springs.   Figure 3-1 illus-

 trates 17 gaging station locations along the river and  its tributaries

 and  Table 3-1 shows  1974 salinity levels at these stations.

         The  historic salinity of the Colorado River can be accounted

 for  by such  natural  sources.   Even today,  nearly  65 percent of  the

 measured salt load at Hoover Dam is  from natural  diffuse  and  point

 sources.   The diffuse sources include  runoff of  rain and snowmelt

 across  saline lands.   Point sources  which contribute substantial

 surface or groundwater inflow of salts  include Blue Springs,  LaVerkin

 Springs,  Littlefield Springs,  Glenwood/Dotsero Springs, and Paradox

 Valley (see  Figure 3-1).   The saltiness of the river is naturally
        -'-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin, Summary Report, Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1971, pp. 15-16.  The salt load data are
historical from the 1942-1961 period, adjusted to 1960 conditions.  DRI
has further adjusted the percentages to delete salt loading caused by
storage releases from Hoover Dam.


                                30

-------
                                                       BIG SANDY RIVER
                             UINTA BASIN


                         PRICE  RIVER


                     SAN RAFAEL RIVER

                      CRYSTAL GEYSER
                  D/RTY. DEVIL  RIVER

                               U     T
          V   A   (D    A \
                                                                  SAN JUAN
                                                                 COLLECTOR
                                                                  SYSTEM
                          PALO
                         VERDE
                      IRRIGATION
                       DISTRIC
         LITTLEFIELD
           SPRINGS

LAS VEGAS WASH*'1
    CALIF


  COLORADO RIVER
INDIAN RESERVA
                                                                      •MEEKER
                                                                        DOME
                                                                    GLENWOOD-
                                                                     DOTSERO
                                                                     SPRINGS

                                                                   .   ;LOWER
                                                                   '  GUNN/SON
                                                                      PARADOX
                                                                      VALLEY*
                Figure 3-1. Colorado River Basin Showing Location of Seventeen
                        Gaging Stations and Proposed Salinity Control Projects.


                Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
  UNITS AUTHORIZED FOR
   CONSTRUCTION
                                     31

-------
                                      TABLE  3-1

                     Historical  and Present Modified Water Conditions'
                                  at Seventeen  Stations
                                  Colorado  River   Basin

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Station
Green River near
Green River, WY
Green River near
Greendale, UT
Duchesne River ne'ir
Randlett, UT
Green Rivir at Green
River, UT
San Rafael River near
Green River, UT
Colorado River near
Glenwood Springs , CO
Colorado River near
Cameo, CO
Guucison Fiver near
Grand Junction, CO
Colorado River near
Cisco, UT
San Juan River near
Archuleta. MM
Ssr-. J'jicn Biver near
Sluff, UT
Colorado River at
Lees Ferry, AZ
Colorado River near
Grasd Canyon, AZ
Virgin River at
Hliitorli
Flow
(1,000
A.F.)
1,312
1,575
438
4,193
91
1,6'-,0
2,793
1,729
4,959
904
1,611
10,346
10.SJ9
157
r:ll 1'o.K
TD:
Tns/vv
552
913
404
2,602
210
595
1,531
1,454
i,lC4
198
983
7,856
8,943
349
111 lor.

Ml! /I
309
426
678
456
1,699
267
403
618
609
161
449
558
6 1 7
1,634
!'ri",ont Moil 1 fir.
Flow
(1,000
A.F.) :
1,285
1,599
402
4,153
78
1,467
2,548
1,708
4,639
826
1,497
10,335
10,64E
157
i i.Vuilll. 10
TDS
fns ,'vr
562
970
401
2,666
212
598
1,523
1,474
4,140
195
997
8,580
9,667
349
I! I'l ''I

Mis /I
324
446
735
471
1,999
300
440
C35
656
174
490
610
66E
1,634
       Littlefield,  AZ

15.   Colorado River
       below Hoover  Dam,
       AZ-NV

16.   Colorado River
       below Parker  Dam,
       AZ-CA
10,244    9,654    693      10,176        10,393       751
 9,235    8,745    696
17.  Colorado River at       8,540    8,891    766
       Imperial Dam, AZ-CA
8,748
                             7,844
8,923       750
              9,183       861
Source:   Table E, page 65, "Progress Report Ho. 8, Quality of Water, Colorado River
         Basin", January 1977, USSR.
                                         32

-------
concentrated by the loss of fresh water, which otherwise would


dilute the salt, to phreatophytes and to surface evaporation.


        The salinity of the river has always increased from its head-


waters to its mouth.  However, the increase has become more pronounced


and has accelerated with man's development of the river system.


The river supplies water for two and one-half million irrigated


acres and various other industrial and municipal needs within the


Colorado River Basin.  Also, enough fresh water is exported from the


basin to supply about 12 million people with full or partial


domestic supplies and to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres


of farmland, and this export adds to salinity concentrations in


the Colorado River.


        The processes which increase salinity—salt loading and


salt concentrating—are affected by development as well as by nature.


The major man-made contributor of salinity is irrigated agriculture


which both loads and concentrates salts.  Of the 35.3 percent of


the salt load attributable to man's activities, nearly all (34.3


percent of the total salt load) is linked to irrigated agriculture.

                                                                2
The remaining contribution from municipal and industrial sources


is being partially brought under control by the National Pollutant


Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES) imposed policy of "no salt


return" whenever practicable.


        As further development on the Colorado River occurs it is


apparent that, since all use increases salinity, control measures


must apply to natural as well as man-caused sources of salinity.  To
        o
         Municipal and industrial sources contribute 1.4 percent of

total salt loading, but 0.4 percent of salt load is exported in the

water used for out-of-basin diversions.  Source:  EPA, The Mineral
Quality Problem, p. 15.         33

-------
this effect PL 92-500 and PL 93-320 are being implemented by the

basin states, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States

Bureau of Reclamation, and other involved federal agencies.  PL 92-500

calls for maintenance, improvement and protection of all U.S. water

quality; and PL 93-320 specifically requires control of salinity in

the Colorado River.

        Economic impacts of salinity.  Salinity has several negative

economic impacts on users of the water.  These include:  increased

water treatment costs, primarily for chemical softening; damage to

plumbing, utensils, and textiles; and the expenses of extra soap

and detergents needed for cleaning.  These costs have been estimated
                                               3
for household consumers by Bruvold and Mitchell  who found from

studies in 15 California communities that as the mineral content of

domestic water (as measured by mg/1 of total dissolved solids, TDS)

increased, so did the "penalty cost," or monthly expenditures per

household for bottled water (for drinking and other purposes), for

water softening additives, and for water softener operation.  In

communities where TDS exceeded 470 mg/1, mean monthly penalty costs

ranged from $3.24 to $6.00 per household.  The Bruvold and Mitchell

study also established the willingness of residents to pay more if

water quality were improved.  The willingness to pay more increased

with increasing mineral content and ranged from $2.35 to $3.34

monthly per household in communities where TDS exceeded 470 mg/1.^
         William H. Bruvold and Raymond N. Mitchell, Jr., Consumer
Evaluation of the Quality and Cost of Domestic Water, Contribution No. 159
Davis:  University of California Water Resources Center, July 1976, pp. 49-

        4Ibid., pp. 53-56.
                                34

-------
        Health impacts of salinity.  Salinity in drinking water is

objectionable largely because of its effect on taste  (at concentra-

tions above 300 or 400 mg/1 of sulfates) and its associated hardness.

However, saline water is known to have negative health effects on

certain sensitive persons, particularly at higher sodium levels.

Gastrointestinal effects are associated with high levels of sulfates

(over 600 mg/1), among persons unconditioned to such levels.   A

1977 study by the National Research Council for EPA found that water

hardness and health are related:

        A large body of scientific information indicates
        that certain inorganic or mineral constituents of
        drinking water are correlated with increased
        morbidity and mortality rates.

However, the report said that "hard water" (i.e., water containing

more than a certain level of calcium carbonate) is linked to a

decreased incidence of heart disease, hypertension and strokes,

whereas "soft" water is harmful because of its high levels of

cadmium, lead, copper and zinc.

        Agricultural impacts of salinity.  The effects of salinity

on irrigated agriculture include decreases in crop yields, damage

to soils and damage to irrigation systems.  The negative effect of

salinity on crops can cause various forms of economic penalty to

the irrigator:  (a) he can take no remedial action and suffer a loss
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposed National
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations," Federal Register, Vol. 42,
No. 62, March 31, 1977.

         "Research Council Study:  Water Improvement Could Cut
Deaths," The Denver Post, May 29, 1977, p. 17-
                                35

-------
in yield due to increased salt in the crop root zone;  (b) he can

use additional irrigation water  (if soil conditions permit) to

leach excess salt from the root  zone, at the cost of additional

labor, fertilizer, and drainage  facilities, plus the cost of water

and possibly the loss of other land taken out of production to con-

centrate water on the better land; or (c) he can replace salt-

sensitive crops with less sensitive crops.   Each of these alter-

natives will involve an economic penalty to the irrigator which,

because of the complexity, is difficult to quantify-  However, the

estimated total penalty costs to irrigated agriculture in Southern

California are estimated at $4.6 million in 1980 and $10.0 million

in 2010.  Penalty costs in Arizona, both in Yuma County and in the

Central Arizona Project area, are estimated at $1.1 million in 1980

and $2.7 million in 2010.8

        International impacts of salinity.  United States relations

with Mexico will continue to suffer if the quality of Colorado River

water entering Mexico remains unacceptably saline, in violation of

what Mexico considers to be an agreement between the two nations.

Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission,

United States and Mexico, states that the quality of water delivered

to Mexico shall be no more than 115 ppm (plus or minus 30 ppm) over

the annual average salinity measured at Imperial Dam.  It has since
        ?U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions VIII and IX,
The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin, Appendix B,
Physical and Economic Impacts, 1971, pp. 59-78.
        8
         Ibid., pp. 99, 117, 127.
                               36

-------
been resolved by the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum, and




adopted by the seven basin states, that salinity at Imperial Dam




should be maintained at or below 1972 levels (879 mg/1).  Thus




each state, as well as the federal government, is aware of,




studying, planning and implementing programs to achieve that ob-




jective through local, state and basin-wide efforts.






State-by-state Overview of the Salinity Problem




        The following very brief overviews attempt to present the




states' views of their salinity problems.  Because site-specific




information is scarce, the descriptions are not limited to the




Colorado River Basin portions of each state.  The intent is simply




to describe the state's sense of the water quality and quantity




situation within its borders, with emphasis on the causes, sources




and effects of salinity.
                                 37

-------
Arizona Salinity

        Water—both quantity and quality—is widely considered to

be the major statewide issue in Arizona.  Salinity and sedimenta-

tion are the major water quality problems; and, by mining ground-

water, the state is using water at twice the rate of replenishment.

        Much of the state is arid, with over 70 percent of the land

owned federally or by Indian tribes.  Of the remaining 21.8 million

acres of privately owned and leased state trust lands, only 1.2
                                              9
million acres are under irrigated agriculture.   Yet fully 89 percent

of the state's water depletions are used in irrigated agriculture.

In Arizona's Colorado River Basin, agricultural use of water rises

to 95 percent.

        Generally the quality of the renewable surface water supplies

is acceptable for all uses.  Groundwater supplies, which are being

depleted, range from acceptable to unusable, with one aquifer con-

taining up to 100,000 mg/1 IDS, 2 three times saltier than seawater.

Because of scarce supplies, usable quality water is valued and

reused wherever possible, thus increasing consumptive use and pro-

viding little return flow into the Colorado River.  The single
        Q
         Arizona Water Commission, Arizona State Water Plan; Phase I—
Inventory of Resource and Uses, Phoenix:  July 1975, p. 21.

       10Ibid., p. 97.

       1:LEarl V. Miller Engineers and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Water
Quality Management Plan, Colorado Main Stem River Basin, Arizona,
Arizona Department of Health Services, 1976, p. 2-7.
       I O
         Water Commission, State Water Plan, p. 95.
                                 38

-------
 greatest source of Colorado River salinity is the naturally salty



 groundwater of the Blue Springs, which add 550,000 tons of salt



 annually to the river.  Blue Springs is not considered structurally



 or economically feasible for correction by the Bureau of Reclamation



 and furthermore is an area sacred to the Hopi and hence not politi-


                                       13
 cally susceptible to corrective action.    Irrigated agriculture



 is the second largest source of salinity, but a relatively small



 source since much of the irrigation water is consumptively reused.



 Municipal effluents are commonly reused and, like industrial ef-



 fluents, are coming under control by NPDES permits.




         The Gila River Basin, which contains a major portion of the



 State's land area, population, and economic development, drains natural-



 ly into the Colorado River downstream from Imperial Dam.  However, runoff



 from this basin rarely reaches the River.  Salinity control in the Colo-



 rado River below Imperial Dam is being carried out by various measures



 authorized under Title I of P.L. 93-320, the Colorado River Basin



 Salinity Control Act.




         Most of the development in the Little Colorado River Basin is



 located in the middle and upper reaches of the basin where surface water



 or groundwater supplies are available, and agriculture or municipal and



 industrial return flows seldom if ever reach the mainstream of the



Colorado River.   The Little Colorado River, except for headwater areas,



is perennial only for a few miles near its mouth because of the existence
        13
          Bureau of Reclamation, Progress Reports on Colorado River

Basin Salinity Control Act—Title II and Colorado River Water Quality

Improvement Program, Denver, January 1975, p. BS-1.
                                39

-------
of several saline springs, including the Blue Springs.  At the lower




most gage on the river near Cameron, there is little or no flow for




four to six months each year.  Significant flow at this point occurs




in response to heavy but infrequent rainfall or from spring snowmelt




in the higher elevations.  The larger flows are usually low in dissolved




solids, although they often carry large concentrations of suspended sedi-




ment.




         In the remaining areas of the State tributary to the Colorado




River, the principal developed areas are immediately adjacent to the




Colorado River.  These include the large agricultural area on the




Colorado River Indian Reservation, two small non-Indian irrigation




districts, and the communities of Parker, Lake Havasu City and the




Bullhead City-Riveria area.  Only the Colorado River Indian Reser-




vation has measured return flows to the River.  The Reservation has




already reached its maximum water entitlement in terms of diversion




from the River, and is implementing measures to increase irrigation




efficiencies and reduce return flows so that remaining lands can be




brought into production.
                                39A

-------
California  Salinity



          The Colorado River  provides  the  primary water  source  for


southern California.  The  river  supplies 75  percent  of the water used


by six public agencies (metropolitan water and  irrigation districts)


supplying water  to lands representing  about  one-half  the assessed


valuation of the State of  California.


          In the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Diego, high


salinity Colorado River water causes problems for both municipal and


industrial  users.  These include:  "high soap consumption, formation


of objectionable scale in  heating vessels, and  damage through corrosive


attack on distribution pipelines and user  plumbing systems and appliances."


In addition, there is an adverse effect on the  taste of the water.


Because of  these problems  the Metropolitan Water District of Southern


California  (Los  Angeles area) formerly centrally softened much of its



Colorado River water.  Instead, it now achieves reduced hardness by


mixing Colorado  River water with higher quality Northern California


water supplies from the State Water Project.


          The Palo Verde and  Bard Irrigation Districts, along with the


Yuma Indian Reservation,  use  Colorado  River water for irrigation in an


area with a high water table.  Open ditch  drains have been constructed


with good success.  But even with good draining soils, extra water must

                                                   15
be applied  to leach salt out  of the soil root zone.


          Water  users in the  Imperial  Irrigation District and Coachella


Valley County Water District have to contend with the additional problem
         -^California, Colorado River Board, Need for Controlling Salinity

of the Colorado River, Los Angeles:  Colorado River Board of California,

August 1970, pp. 46-47.


         15Ibid., p.49.           40

-------
 of clay and  heavy  loam soils  in  the  application  of  saline water.

 Not only do  irrigators have to install  expensive drainage systems,

 they also must  regularly overapply water  to  leach salt  from the

 root zone.   This in  turn requires extra application of  fertilizer

 to replace that leached along with the  salt.

         The  major  effect of increasing  salinity  in  Southern California's

 water  supply is increasing irrigation costs  (water  and  drain instal-

 lation)  and  fertilizer  costs, along with  a decreasing yield per

 acre with over  application of water and concurrent  salt damage.   How-

 ever,  a  recent  study indicates that salinity damage  costs  in the

 municipal and industrial (M&I) sector are beginning  to  equal those
                                                  1 R
 of agriculture  in  the lower Colorado River Basin.
        16Ibid., p. 51.

        17Ibid., p. 52.
        1 Q
          Alan Kleinmann and Jay Anderson, Draft Report for Consortium
of Water Research Institutes and Centers, unpublished.
                                41

-------
Colorado Salinity




        Colorado is a semiarid  state which obtains about  two-thirds




of its annual water supply  from the Colorado River Basin.1   However,




salinity does not have a direct impact within Colorado  itself.  The



salinity problem occurs downstream.  While state water  officials ad-




mit some obligation to downstream water users, it is felt that the



burden should be shared among the basin states and with the federal



government.




        After natural sources,  irrigation return flow is admitted to



be a major source of salinity.  About 38 percent of Colorado's irri-


                                                    20
gated cropland lies within  the  Colorado River Basin.    Even so,



salinity levels along the Colorado River are considerably lower than



those along the Arkansas and South Platte rivers in Eastern Colorado,


                                                21
which also are used for agricultural irrigation.    This has led



some state officials to claim that downstream users of  Colorado



River water have not, for various reasons, adjusted irrigation prac-



tices to handle saline water.   Colorado is indirectly achieving re-



ductions in irrigation return flow as irrigation improvements are



made for economic reasons.



        There are several major sources of natural salinity in



Colorado:   the Dolores River picks up a salt load of 200,000 tons



per year as it flows through the salt deposits of the Paradox Valley;
        ] Q
          U.S. Department of the Interior, Water for Tomorrow;  Colorado

State Water Plan, Phase 1;  Appraisal Report, February 1974, p. 3.3.



        20Ibid., p. 5.3.



        21Ibid., pp. 3.7-3.10.




                                42

-------
and the Glenwood/Dotsero Springs,  a group of natural thermal springs

along a reach of the Colorado River, add over 500,000 tons of

dissolved solids annually.22  Both of these major sources of natural

salinity are under federal study for possible control.   The state

does not feel that municipal and industrial salinity contributions

warrant much concern at this time.
        22
          Bureau of Reclamation, Progress Reports on Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act—Title II and Colorado River Water Quality
Improvement Program, Denver, Janauary 1975, p. PV-1 and p. GD-1.
                                43

-------
Nevada Salinity

        The Colorado River Basin portion of southern Nevada includes

primarily the area of Clark County (Las Vegas).  There is almost no

irrigated agriculture supported by the current 130,000 acre-foot

diversion of Colorado River water, which is used for municipal and

industrial purposes.  The remainder of Nevada's 300,000 acre-foot

allocation under the Colorado River Compact flows unused, or remains

in storage.  As a result there are no significant irrigation return
                                        oo
flows to the Colorado River from Nevada.    The entire allocation of

300,000 acre-feet has been committed to future municipal and indus-

trial uses, and the Colorado River will supply over 75 percent of

the water used in the Las Vegas metropolitan area by 1985.

        Of the currently measured 4 percent municipal and industrial

basinwide contribution to salinity measured at Imperial Dam, 2.5 per-
                                                     r\ i
cent is identified as discharges from Las Vegas Wash.    Over half

of this discharge is poor quality groundwater resulting from combina-

                                                      25
tions of natural salt buildup and man-made discharges.    Salinity

is a concern in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, not only because of
          Nevada, Division of Water Resources and Nevada State Study
Team, Alternative Multiobjective Plans Emphasizing Water Resource Use
in Area V;  Colorado Planning Region, Carson City:  April 1974, p. B-3.
        9 /
          Ibid., The flows in Las Vegas Wash are largely groundwater return
flows from lawn and park irrigation, treated M&I wastewater seepage, and
some agricultural irrigation contaminated from historical salt waste depos-
its from World War II industrial plants.  They are not direct M&I surface
return flows.  The responsibility for the correction of the groundwater
return flows has been assumed by the federal government (Bureau of
Reclamation) under PL 93-320.
          25
            R.W. Beck and Associates—Brown and Caldwell, Clark County Area-
 wide Salinity Control Investigation, Clark County, Nevada:  February 12, 1976,
 p.  10.
                                44

-------
the corrosive effects, excess soap requirements and taste factors,




but because of the critical nature of the water supply.  The Las Vegas




area is close to running out of water of any quality, and reuse of




supplies depends in part on the quality of the original water as




well as on the subsequent degradation.
                                 45

-------
New Mexico Salinity

        Water quality priorities  in New Mexico  identify  sedimenta-

tion and salinity as both historic and contemporary primary contami-

nants throughout the state.  A review of existing salinity control

programs and policies is a high priority in the state's  planning

process for water quality management.    It is  noted that certain

waters of the state were recognized by the 16th century  Spanish

as extremely salty (i.e., Rio Salado), and have, if anything
                                                              o 7
been improved by the water use technologies of  modern society,

although still presenting water quality problems.

        Surface water contamination by salinity is belived to be

primarily natural and from nonpoint sources, making identification,

monitoring and control extremely  difficult.  Illustrating the prob-

lem, irrigated agriculture amounted to less than 2 percent of land

use in 1970, while rangeland (much under federal or Indian owner-
                             90
ship) constituted 64 percent.

        Salinity pollution of groundwater supplies is primarily a

consequence of man's actions.  New Mexico's semiarid climate provides

only limited recharge to groundwater aquifers,  so withdrawal of

fresh water often allows saltwater intrusion from surrounding saline
        26
          New Mexico, Water Quality Control Commission, Continuing
Planning Process for Water Quality Management, Santa Fe:  March 1976, p. 14.
        07
          New Mexico, Water Quality Control Commission, Water Quality
in New Mexico, Report for Submission to the Congress of the United States,
Santa Fe:   May 1975, p. 15.

        28Ibid., p. 16.
                                  46

-------
aquifers.  Saltwater intrusion is particularly undesirable because


                                                           *?Q
groundwater constitutes one-half of New Mexico's water use.    Ground-



water withdrawal occurs almost entirely outside the Colorado River



Basin portion of New Mexico.
       29Ibid., p. 10.
                                  47

-------
Utah Salinity

         Utah has identified natural point and nonpoint sources of

salinity as significant problems in its portion of the Colorado River

Basin.30  Crystal Oeyser alone contributes 3,000 tons of salt load

per year to the Colorado River system.  Also, soil conditions such

as the extensive deposits of Mancos shale underlying agricultural

land in Carbon and Emery Counties contribute substantial nonpoint

source salinity.31  Percolation and runoff from public land are

major contributors to salinity in Utah.

         It is recognized that salinity will increase as irrigated

agriculture increases.  Although Utah makes extensive use of its

share of Colorado River water, as apportioned by the 1922 compact,

some water to which Utah is entitled is not yet used.  In the Utah

portion of the Colorado River Basin, 90 percent of the water diverted

is used in agriculture.32  The water is used and reused in irrigated agri-

culture, since irrigation return flows constitute a significant portion

of supplies to downstream users.  The heavy demand for irrigation water

thus creates a conflict between quality and quantity goals.

         Utah supports the plan for salinity control presented by
                                                o q
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, J but does not

intend to act in any manner which would infringe upon the quantity

or the use of its allocation of Colorado River water.
               , Bureau of Water Quality, Water quality Report, April
1975, p. 7.

         31Ibid., p. 20.

         32Utah, Board of Water Resources, The State of Utah Water—1975,
January 1976, p. 27.

         33Ibid., p. 33.
                                48

-------
Wyoming Salinity

        Southwestern Wyoming is drained by the Green River, a

tributary of the Colorado.  In 1973, Green River water, just before

entering the Flaming Gorge Reservoir, averaged only 320 ppm of total
                        r) I
dissolved solids (IDS).    This low concentration enhances the claim

that Wyoming does not have a significant salinity problem.  Thus far,

only one area of saline return flow from irrigation, the Big Sandy, has

been tentatively identified in the Colorado River Basin of Wyoming.

        Wyoming's major source of water pollution, including salinity,

is from natural runoff, with irrigation return flow the other iden-

tifiable source.  Addressing pollution from these sources is a major

part of the federally funded "208" areawide water quality planning

process.  Until the "208" studies are completed and programs imple-

mented, the state is continuing to identify and quantify nonpoint

sources of pollution.

        Over 90 percent of the water diverted for use in the Green

River Basin is to provide water for grazing rangeland and irrigated

agriculture.    If irrigation rights were fully developed, along with

potential municipal and industrial developments, the TDS concentra-

tions in the Green River could rise to a range of from 360 to 480

ppm by the year 2020.    It is this potential increase in total dis-

solved solids which is considered the real salinity problem in Wyoming.
        -^Wyoming, State Engineer's Office, The Wyoming Framework Water
Plan, Cheyenne:  May 1973, p. 200.

        -^Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality, 1975 Annual
Report, Cheyenne:  September 1975, pp. 48-49.

        36Ibid., p. 204.

        37Ibid., p. 209.

-------
Present State Activities to Control Salinity


        Each of the Colorado River Basin state governments is cooperat-


ing in the federal/basin-wide effort to establish and implement an


effective salinity control program for the Colorado River.  Additionally,


each state is individually implementing its own water quality program


and standards, including salinity standards as set forth by the Forum

        O Q
document,   adopted by each state, and approved by EPA.


        Most of the states' activities are outgrowths of traditional


state responsibilities:  (a) to regulate water quality, as a part of


the public health function; and  (b) to regulate water rights and


allocate water resources as part of the state engineer's function.


        Person-years of state employees' effort spent in 1976 execut-


ing existing state policies and regulations touching upon water


quality have been quantified in Table 3-1.  The amount of effort


spent in such activities by water rights/water resources allocation


and water quality control personnel, as quantified, has been derived


from agency accounting records wherever possible, or from agency


best estimates when records have not provided the appropriate data.


        There also have been several salinity control initiatives


taken by individual states. Clark County, Nevada, has been directed


by the State Legislature to assume responsibility for upgrading the


quality of surface water into Las Vegas Wash, and has six staff
       -^Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, "Proposed Water
Quality Standards for Salinity, Including Numeric Criteria and Plan
of Implementation for Salinity Control; Colorado River System,"
June 1975.
                                 50

-------
                                               TABLE 3-2

 ESTIMATES OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)  PERSONNEL* ASSIGNED TO WATER RIGHTS/WATER RESOURCE ALLOCATION
            OR WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES IN SEVEN COLORADO RIVER BASIN STATES,  1976


      AREA                   Arizona    California    Colorado    Nevada    New Mexico    Utah    Wyoming
Water Rights — Resource
Allocation Personnel (FTE) :
Statewide 33 75-110
Colorado River Basin only 33 0
oiWater Quality Control
M Personnel (FTE) :
Statewide 23 600-700
Colorado River Basin only 23 2-3
Totals (FTE) :
Statewide 56 675-810
Colorado River Basin only 56 2-3
229 37 120 66 73
70 7 12 21 17-18
44 25 34 36 48
3.5 10-11 2 5 10
273 62 154 102 121
73.5 17-18 14 26 27-28
*The derivations of the FTE's listed are discussed in the attached notes.

-------
                        NOTES TO TABLE 3-2
        This table provides, on a state-by-state basis, full-time
equivalent staffing information on state employees working  In the
areas of water rights/water resources allocation and of water
quality .control.  The information is provided on a statewide basis
and on a best-estimate basis for the Colorado River Basin portion
of each state.  Following are state-by-state notes describing
pertinent components of their staffing figures.
Arizona

        For purposes of water rights/water resources allocation, the
entire state is considered part of the Colorado River Basin as
only a small arid section near the Mexican border does not drain
into the basin.  The Arizona Water Commission does assign two
persons to the Colorado mainstem, but the State Land Department
specifically excludes the mainstem in its resources allocation.
Twenty-two professionals, including hydrologists, dam safety
inspectors and administrators, are employed by the Water Commission.
The Land Department employs eleven professionals.

        The Water Quality Control Division has 23 employees involved
in wastewater, surface water quality and "208" planning.
California

        In the area of water rights/water resources allocation,
California considers the entire state to be so closely interrelated
that the entire staff could be included.  However, a best-estimate
procedure determined that 50 to 60 persons, depending on circumstances,
worked on statewide water rights, with less than one FTE in the
Colorado River Basin because of the federal contracts in the area.
Resources allocation has an even greater variance dependent on
the availability of water.  Statewide allocation personnel
range from 25 to 50 persons.  Two to six employees work in the
Colorado River Basin, again depending on the availability of water.
No one works directly in the Colorado River drainage area because
all rights for Colorado River water are assigned.

        Water Quality Control, again on a best-estimate basis,
employs 600 to 700 persons statewide.   Eighteen employees are
assigned to the Colorado River Basin,  three in the Colorado River
drainage.

Colorado

        Water resources allocation in Colorado employs 20 persons
statewide,  three in the Colorado River Basin.   Water rights personnel
                                52

-------
                  NOTES TO TABLE 3-2 (continued)
 totals  209,  including administrators, water records, and  field
 people.   Sixty-seven of these are assigned to the Colorado River
 Basin.

         The  Colorado Water Quality Division has 44 statewide employees,
 three and one-half of whom are concentrated in the Colorado River
 Basin.
 Nevada

        Water rights and distribution in Nevada employs a permanent
 staff of 37, with seven devoting effort to the Colorado River Basin.

        Efforts toward water quality are a joint activity, of the
 Environmental Protection Services and the Department of Fish and
 Game.  Twenty-five persons work statewide, with ten or eleven in
 the  Colorado River Basin.
New Mexico

        One hundred and twenty persons work statewide in water
rights including technical studies and compact administration,
with 12 devoting their time to the Colorado River Basin.

        The Water Quality Division of the Environmental Improvement
Agency employs 15 professionals,  four sewerage plant engineers, and
50 field officers contributing 30 percent of  their time directly on
water quality (for a FTE of 34).  Six of these employees devote
approximately 30 percent of their time to the Colorado River  Basin
(for a FTE of two).
Utah

        Water rights/resource allocation employs 66 people  state-
wide in Utah.  Of these, 21 devote the substantial majority of
their time to the Colorado River Basin.

        Twenty-eight persons are employed in pollution control and
water quality liaison activities, along with eight involved in safe
drinking water.  Five persons of the 36 devote their time to the
Colorado River Basin.
Wyoming

        The State employs 52 field workers, eight ground water
specialists, eight surface water specialists, and five staff members

                                 53

-------
                NOTES TO TABLE 3-2 (continued)
for the Board of Control in the area of water rights/resource
allocation.  Seventeen or eighteen of these persons work in the
Colorado River Basin.

         The Water Quality Division employs 30 persons, the Depart-
ment of Health and Social Services employs six district sanitarians,
and the Land Ouality Division has 12 employees involved in solution
mining.  In the Colorado River Basin, ten water quality, land quality
sanitarians and "208" personnel are directly involved in quality
control.
                                54

-------
members directly involved.  Three or four persons employed by  the

City of Las Vegas are also participating in the effort.  The State

of California has instituted state-financed programs to determine

the technical and political feasibility of reusing wastewater.  Geo-

thermal desalting research in the Imperial Valley was primarily

funded by the United States Bureau of Reclamation with some state

assistance, but the research funding has recently been eliminated.

Such activities are in addition to cooperative interstate and  stan-

dard water quality efforts by California.


Role of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and Advisory
  Council

        During 1966 and 1967, representatives of the seven state

governments of the Colorado River Basin met in a series of con-

ferences to discuss the relationship of proposed water quality

standards to future development of each state's apportionment of

water under the Colorado River Compact.  The representatives styled

themselves as "The State Conferees in the Matter of Pollution of

the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and Its Tributaries."

In January 1967 the State Conferees agreed on guidelines for formu-
                               OQ
lating water quality standards.    After subsequent conference

sessions, the State Conferees published in February 1972 a resolu-

tion that the salinity control program for the Colorado River be
        39Appendix B of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum, "Proposed Water Quality Standards for Salinity Including
Numeric Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control,"
June 1975.
                                 55

-------
accelerated and that salinity be dealt with on a basinwide basis.




In a later (April 1972) conference, the State Conferees published




further conclusions and recommendations.^




        In response to the needs identified in the earlier conferences,




the State Conferees met on November 9, 1973 and created a new organi-




zation, the "Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum."  The Forum,




consisting of representatives of the seven basin states, was formed




in response to Section 103 of PL 92-500, which required that the states




establish a mechanism for interstate cooperation in setting numerical




criteria for salinity on the Colorado River.




        The Forum membership is made up of representatives appointed




by the governor of each of the states; typically including represen-




tatives of water resource and water quality agencies.  Forum members




from each of the states have worked with the Environmental Pro-




tection Agency in developing uniform salinity standards for the




Colorado River system.  The Forum report, "Water Quality Standards




for Salinity Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of Implementa-




tion of Salinity Control, Colorado River Systems," was published




in June, 1975, and distributed for review to interested parties.




Regional and state public hearings were held on the report and each




basin state subsequently adopted the standards and criteria into




their water quality plans, or water quality laws.  These salinity




standards were approved by EPA during November 1976.
        40Appendix C, Ibid.




        41Ibid.
                                   56

-------
        The Forum is currently preparing draft baseline values  for




 salinity, monitoring progress of salinity control projects, giving




 congressional  testimony on behalf of project funding, and providing




 the  seven basin states with an overview of progress and problems in




 salinity control.  The Forum has also assumed an informal "watchdog"




 role in assuring implementation of all aspects of the salinity  con-




 trol plan.




        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council




 was  created on June 24, 1974, by Section 204 of PL 93-320, to pro-




 vide advice on progress, plans and other salinity control activities.




 The  Council serves as a liaison between the basin states and the




 Departments of Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Pro-





 tection Agency, and advises and makes recommendations to the




 Secretary of Interior and the Administrator of the Environmental




 Protection Agency.




        The first meeting of the Advisory Council was held on




 March 23, 1976.  Membership of the Council is essentially that  of the




 Forum plus one additional member from each of five basin states.




 To date they have prepared fiscal year 1978 recommendations for federal




 activities, and have been keeping close watch over the salinity




 control projects of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation




 Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Agricultural Research




 Service.






Federal Government Activity




        The U.S.  Government is engaged in numerous administrative,




engineering,  planning and control activities related to reducing




                                   57

-------
or limiting Colorado River salinity.  The responsibilities of  the




six agencies involved are described briefly below.




        Environmental Protection Agency.  The Administrator of the




EPA has the obligation to administer the provision of PL 92-500,




Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  This in-




cludes, among other endeavors, the NPDES permits, the areawide




"208" planning studies, and the mechanism which  established the




Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.  As the agency responsible




for administering PL 92-500, the EPA maintains close liaison with




the Forum, especially in regard to salinity standards and NPDES per-




mits, and at the same time liaison with those federal agencies engaged




in structural activities for the control of salinity through the inter-




agency salinity coordinating committee.




        United States Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.




The Secretary of the Interior is directed, by PL 93-320, Colorado




River Basin Salinity Control Act, "to proceed with a program of works




of improvement for the enforcement and protection of the quality of




water available in the Colorado River."




        The USER is the agency responsible for implementation of the




structural (physical) actions directed in Title  I and Title II of




PL 93-320.  The USER cooperates and coordinates with other agencies




whenever the required action combines structural with other activities.




        Acting under Title I of PL 93-320, the USER is constructing




an international desalting plant near Yuma, Arizona, to comply with




Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United
                                 58

-------
 States and Mexico.  The desalinization complex includes, besides

 the physical plant, lining of the unlined portion of the Coachella

 Canal, retirement of irrigated lands in the Wellton-Mohawk Division,

 and pumping of groundwater from the border aquifer.

        In response to Title II of PL 93-320, the Colorado River

 Water Quality Improvement Program (CRWQIP) was instituted to inves-

 tigate the feasibility of salinity control projects.  The USER has

 contributed wildlife impact, economic projections and other support

 studies and research to the CRWQIP.  Title II authorized the construc-

 tion, operation and maintenance of four salinity control units:

 Paradox Valley, Grand Valley, Crystal Geyser, and Las Vegas Wash.

 Paradox Valley and Crystal Geyser are natural salinity sources re-
                          / O
 quiring structural action.    Grand Valley and Las Vegas Wash are

 sources of combined natural and man-made salinity and require a

 combination of structural and management actions which involve EPA,

 SCS (Soil Conservation Service) and ARS (Agricultural Research Service)

 in the recommended solutions.  Other areas are under study by the

 CRWQIP as possible sites for future salinity control projects.

        Soil Conservation Service, USDA.  The Soil Conservation Ser-

 vice of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is assigned responsibility

 for nonstructural activities to control salinity on agricultural lands.

 The SCS is completing the on-farm inventory of present irrigation
        42
          Although Crystal Geyser actually is a privately owned abandoned
oil test well, it is considered as a "natural" source because it is lo-
cated in an area of already existing eruptive activity.  Plugging the
well is likely to cause a natural eruption elsewhere in the vicinity.
                                 59

-------
practices, needed system improvements and other conservation needs




for the Grand Valley unit authorized in PL 93-320.  Cost-benefit




and sedimentation reports have been completed.  Draft plans of study




have been developed for the Big Sandy, Colorado River Indian Reser-




vation, Lower Gunnison Basin, Uinta Basin, Virgin River, Price-San




Rafael Rivers, and Little Colorado River Basin units.  The SCS is




working closely with the ARS, BLM and USER to implement structural




as well as management activities, and to obtain funding for on-farm




improvements.




        Agricultural Research Service, USDA.  The Department of




Agriculture's ARS is participating in the Grand Valley unit study to




determine the effects of irrigation on salinity.  The study includes




the effects of different types of irrigation systems and practices,




seepage quantities and constituents, deep percolation measurements,




and soil intake characteristics.  The ARS is advising the other




agencies on practices which will reduce salinity from irrigation




sources along the Colorado River.




        Bureau of Land Management, USDI.  The Bureau of Land Manage-




ment, U.S. Department of the Interior, is responsible for controlling




salinity on federal national resource lands.  The BLM, frequently in




cooperation with the United States Geological Survey  (USGS), Depart-




ment of the Interior, is gathering information on geology, soils and




vegetation and their apparent effects on water quality.  The effects




of grazing, vegetation manipulation and other such activities on




water quality are being observed.  This is part of BLM's continuing
                                 60

-------
effort to identify national resource lands which yield high salt




loads to the Colorado River.   Information on such point and non-




point sources is and will be used to determine the feasibility




and costs of controlling salinity input sources.
                                61

-------
                            CHAPTER IV




     •ANALYSIS OF  SUGGESTED  STATE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS







Selection Criteria




        Early in  the study  the investigators developed a list of over




30 possible state and local management actions that appeared likely




to reduce salinity loading  in the Colorado River Basin.  This list




served as a structure for interviews, as well as a basis for review




of statutes, rules and regulations, and technical documents.  During




the course of the study the actions were discussed and amended on the




bases of technical feasibility, cost, legality, need, effectiveness




in salinity control, scope  of applicability, and political and social




implications.  The final list, after some consolidation, contained




33 possible actions.




        Upon completion of the first phase of the study (legal analysis,




interviews, document review), the investigators met with the advisory




board and discussed each of the 33 actions according to the following




criteria:




        Legal aspects of the action.  The envisaged action should either




be specifically authorized by statute, or by a reasonable interpreta-




tion of a statute, or is believed permitted in the absence of specific




statutory language.




        Cost acceptability of the action.   The action recommendation




would fall within acceptable budget limitations of the agency re-




sponsible for its implementation, and would provide a cost-effective




means of achieving the desired results.
                                 62

-------
        Effectiveness of the action.  The envisaged action needs  to

be effective.  An effective action would be one which can reasonably

be expected to induce a measurable  (i.e., more than trivial)  reduc-

tion  in salt loading.
        Political acceptability of the action.  Ideally, any  action

which would overcome implementation obstacles should be generally

acceptable to all parties involved (federal, state, and local govern-

ments, and special interest groups, such as environmentalists,

Indians, farmers, etc.), and particularly to those most greatly af-

fected.  However, most suggested actions greatly affect the perceived

self-interest of one or more parties involved, thus requiring an  ex-

tensive educational process to achieve general political acceptability.

Few if any actions that are wholly noncontroversial are also  likely to

make  a significant improvement in the salinity problem.

        Equity of the action.  It is necessary that the envisaged

action appear equitable to knowledgeable observers.  Obvious  deviations

from  fair treatment would jeopardize successful implementation.

        Understanding the action.  The envisaged action needs to  be

communicable.  Effective administration of public programs and policies

requires that the provisions and requirements involved be readily

communicable to all parties concerned—for example, to governmental

agencies, members of regulatory commissions, industries, and  the  public
at large.

        Administration of the action.  The envisaged action should be

able to be carried out without requiring excessive administrative inputs

by the governmental unit involved.  (Administrative inputs are a

special class  of  costs.)
                                 63

-------
        Monitoring of the action.  The envisaged action should be

able to be implemented with readily available management information.

In particular, how can action performance be monitored; what are the

information requirements for evaluating progress?

        Organizational structure to implement the action.  What sort

of organization is needed to carry out the action?  Does it exist?

Can it administratively be brought into being?  Where an action is

to be carried out by an existing governmental agency, is the quality

of management up to the task?


Application of Selection Criteria

        The remainder of this chapter discusses the use of the selection

criteria to identify those management actions which:

        • are proposed for implementation, to reduce Colorado
          River salinity;

        • are feasible and already underway, and no new inter-
          vention is necessary or practical;

        • are infeasible in the Colorado River Basin.

        Of the original 33 actions, 12 (i.e., numbers 1 through

12 below) have been proposed as recommendations for state action.

Some of these are partially or fully underway in several of the states,

thus providing guidance for implementation elsewhere.  These actions

are legal, or at least not prohibited by law.  They appear technically,

economically and politically possible to implement; and they appear

effective in controlling, to some degree, certain causes of salinity.

These actions are listed in the following section  (beginning on the

next page) and are fully discussed as proposed actions in Chapter V.
                                 64

-------
        After investigation, another nine  (i.e., numbers 13  through




 21)  of  the possible management actions were determined to be already




 underway  in  the Colorado River Basin.  It was judged that the  increased




 application  of these actions would occur naturally, with little  if




 any  need  for additional intervention by state or local governments.




 Such actions range from the plugging of oil and gas wells to regula-




 tion of industrial discharges into the river system, and are fully




 discussed later in this chapter.




        Seven of the 33 actions  (i.e., numbers 22 through 28) have




 been determined infeasible in the Colorado River Basin following appli-




 cation of these criteria, for various reasons of illegality, ineffec-




 tiveness in  controlling salinity, excessive costs and difficulty of




 implementation, political conflicts greater than estimated benefits,




 or because such action was simply unnecessary.  These include such




 possible actions as controlling phreatophytes along streams  and ir-




 rigation canals or treating irrigation return flow for salinity.




 These actions are listed at the end of this chapter and are  discussed




 in Appendix  C.




        The  remainder of the original 33 actions (i.e., numbers 28




 through 33) have been determined to be out-of-scope for this study.




 These actions may be effective in reducing salinity but are  considered




by both EPA and Denver Research Institute as being outside the juris-




 diction of this research project.  The out-of-scope actions  are




briefly discussed below, beginning on page 92.
                                  65

-------
Actions Proposed for Implementation in the Colorado River Basin

        The following list of management actions, proposed to

be taken by state and local agencies, meet most or all of the

criteria discussed above.  The actions are believed feasible

in some or all of the seven states of the Colorado River Basin.

In the next chapter (V) of the report, each of the actions is

discussed fully as to its feasibility in each state, and accompanying

matrices will show, on a state by state comparative basis,  the authority

for the action, its current status, and its potential feasibility.

         1.  Regulate  irrigation water use  so  that  the water
            rights holder reduces  excess use  and implements
            waste  control measures.   This  may be done by:
             (a) Direct  action by the  agency administering
                water rights, to limit  or  control  amounts
                of water diverted  if  waste occurs;  or
             (b) Imposing sanctions by the  State Engineer,
                irrigation district or  other  appropriate
                agency,  on water users  using  excessive
                amounts  of water.

         2.  Through the  federally  funded 208  wastewater plan-
            ning programs, establish  salinity as a  priority
            item to be  dealt  with  and develop a  series of
            local and/or state corrective  actions.

         3.  Because of  the need for an  integrated  approach to
            salinity  control  programs,  utilize an  existing state
            agency  (or  establish such an agency) to  coordinate
            and promote  salinity control actions by  different
            state  institutions.

         4.  Require minimum standards for  water well construction,
            and require plugging of abandoned water wells and
            exploratory drill holes to  avoid  contamination of
            groundwater strata.

         5.  To  reduce salinity from agriculture, use irrigation
            return  flow in nonagricultural areas;  e.g.,  for
            power  plant  cooling.   Utilize  energy facility  siting
            procedures  to encourage  the use of low quality waters
            where  the water requirements of such facilities  could
            be met utilizing  saline and other low  quality waters.
                                 66

-------
  6.   Through  land  use  controls,  prohibit  (or  limit)
      irrigated  agriculture  on  lands with  high natural
      salt  content  in soils  and subsoils,  and  select  new
      lands for  irrigation having soils  and  subsoils  that
      will  contribute reduced salt  loads to  irrigation
      return flow.

  7.   Through  state  economic incentives, promote  con-
      version  of land used for  irrigated agriculture  to
      other uses when highly saline return flows  cannot
      be prevented,  controlled,  or  treated and  encourage
      the modification  of vegetation on  rangeland  (e.g.,
      convert  sagebrush to grassland) to reduce natural
      salinity from  storm runoff.

 8.  Establish special  use  charges for  irrigation water
     provided  from reclamation  projects  to cause  more
     efficient usage and  to  encourage waste  control
     measures.  Use excess  funds derived to  finance
     waste  control  capital  improvements  on farms  and  in
     the conveyance system.

 9.  By use of state economic  incentives,  promote con-
     version of  marginal  agricultural water  to other  uses,
     or increase irrigation  efficiency,  to reduce or
     eliminate salinity resulting from  irrigation return flows.

10.  Administratively modify leases of  state lands (at
     time of lease  or renewal)  to prohibit agricultural
     practices which cause erosion or excess runoff of
     saline water,  and  to improve the land to  reduce
     runoff by:   prohibiting agriculture or  grazing
     on certain  soil types,  restricting  grazing in-
     tensity,  and modifying  vegetation  of  rangeland to
     reduce salinity from runoff.

11.  To reduce salinity from municipal  sources, regulate
     salt loading  appliances such as water softeners.

12.  To reduce salinity from industrial  sources,  require
     reuse  of  wastewater  to  reduce industrial  water demand.
                          67

-------
Actions Underway in the Colorado River Basin; No New Intervention
  Necessary or Practical

        The following management actions (numbers 13 to 21), although

feasible, already are underway in each, or some, of the Colorado River

Basin states.  No new intervention by state or local governments is

believed necessary or practical.  The statement of each action is fol-

lowed by a brief summary of its current status in the Colorado River

Basin.  The nine action statements and summaries are each followed by

matrices showing the comparative authority and current status of action

implementation in each of the seven states.

        Note to Readers:

                When examining the matrix following each action,
        the one word summary at the bottom of each "Authority"
        cell, indicates the scope of the authority in the follow-
        ing manner:

        Specific - statute gives specific authorization for
            action.

        Nonspecific - statute gives authorization for a class
            of actions, permitting this action, but does not
            refer to it.

        General - no statute bars action, nor refers to this
            class of actions or topics.  Very general autho-
            rity exists.

        Prohibited - statute prohibits.
                                 68

-------
    13. Implement state programs for enforcement of recently
        adopted water quality standards for salinity.

        All of the basin states have adopted the Colorado River Salinity

Control Forum document which sets general water quality standards for

salinity and recommends that river salinity be controlled so it will

not exceed 1972 levels.  None of the states has set specific "baseline"

values that measure 1972 salinity in terms of mg/1.  The states are

awaiting the setting of baseline values by the Forum, and the reaction

of the Environmental Protection Agency to those values.  Generally,

the states are awaiting completion of their 208 water quality planning

studies and salinity monitoring programs before enacting or implement-

ing full state programs (beyond NPDES implementation) enforcing

salinity standards for water quality.  The states believe that imple-

mentation of enforcement programs before adequate planning and monitor-

ing occur would be impractical and undesirable.

        A recent (April 1977) announcement by the Environmental Defense

Fund (EDF), a private environmental activist organization, states that

the EDF will bring a lawsuit to force the Environmental Protection

Agency to immediately set new salinity standards for the Colorado

River,  force the states to meet deadlines on implementing actions,

and set up enforceable limits on salinity.  This suit, if successful,

could appreciably affect salinity control programs now being developed

by the  states.

        This action does not have a complementary matrix because it

spans the whole of state and local programs.
                                 69

-------
    14. Improve irrigation efficiency by scheduling amount
        and timing of water application.

        In all seven states, authority exists for soil conservation

districts to undertake demonstration programs of water scheduling.

Experimental work is underway  in Arizona, California, Colorado, and

Utah, usually with federal participation.  The irrigation management

 (IMS) programs are not mandatory in any state, and the state spokes-

men feel strongly that programs should remain voluntary and cooperative.

Nevertheless,  in four of the states (Nevada,  New Mexico,  Utah and

Wyoming) and perhaps in California also,  regulation of water applica-

tion could probably be accomplished under present statutes.   Recom-

mendations that state and local agencies  implement regulations to

control waste of water are discussed under Action 1 in Chapter V.
                                70

-------
ACTION
14 . Improve irri-
gation efficiency
by scheduling
amount and t iming
of water
application.


















^j




























f*
£
i— <
&
0
X
H
:=>
<





















CO
3
ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO NEVADA NEW MEXICO UTAH WYOMING
ARS 45-2054
gives soil conser-
vation districts
authority to con-
duct demonstration
projects and to
cooperate with
landowners , etc .
to promote pro-
grams on cultiva-
tion methods .
Prior approval by
irrigation dis-
tricts is required.

Nonspecific










Some beginning IMS
work is underway
but much improve-
ment is needed,
particularly on
Indian reserva-
tions, e. g. , Lower
Colorado Indian
Reservation , where
state has no
authority. (A
coordinated federal
effort has begun. )
H' flow is not a
major source of
2
M
PS


;=>
CJ



Colorado River
salinity in Arizona
since relatively
little return flow
reaches the Colo-
rado main stem.
(About 9% of salt
| loading from
Arizona. )




1
PRC 9259
authorizes soil
conservation dis-
tricts to conduct
demonstration
projects with
landowners ' con-
sent.
PRC 9261
authorizes dis-
tricts to develop
soil and water
conservation plans.
PRC 9264 autho-
rizes districts to
establish standards
of cropping and
tillage operations
as a condition of
spending funds on
these lands .

Nonspecific



The major source
of saline return
flow from within
California is
in the Palo
Verde Irrigation
Project. Under
state law (Porter-
Cologne) , permits
are required on
all agricultural
lands. Palo
Verde Irrigation
operation with
USER, is studying
ways to improve
irrigation
scheduling.









CRS 35-70-108
authorizes soil
conservation dis-
tricts to conduct
demonstration
proj ects and
cooperate with
landowners on
water conservation
practices .

Nonspecific














Colorado Water
Conservation Board
is experimenting
with sensor irri-
gation in the
Grand Valley.
However , irriga-
tion efficiency
isn' t the complete
answer due to soil
properties (mancos
shale). State of
Colorado bears
clocking devices
but farmer must
pay for land
levelling and
ditch lining,
which are expensive








NRS 548.350
authorizes conser-
vation districts to
construct demon-
stration projects.
548.355
gives power to
control methods of
cultivation to
these districts.

Nonspecific














There is not much
automated irriga-
tion ; farms are
mainly row crops
and alfalfa, on
relatively small
plots.




















NMSA 75-22-12
aucnorizes irriga-
tion districts to
establish equitable
rules and regula-
tions for the
distribution and
us e of wa t e r among
landowners in the
district .
;L
Specific














Until New Mexico
uses its compact
allotment there
is little eco-
nomic incentive
for greater
efficiency.
The Navajo Irriga-
tion Project, just
coming on line,
has been designed
for sprinkler
irrigation with
management
techniques , in-
cluding sensors,
to reduce salinity
of return flow.









UCA 62-1-8
authorizes soil
conservation
districts to
demonstrate soil
conservation pro-
grams and to
conserve water .
UCA 73-7-11
authorizes irriga-
tion districts
to establish
equitable rules
and regulations
for the use of
water .
UCA 73-9-13
authorizes water
conservancy
districts to allot
water to lands , in
amounts not to
exceed the amount
which can be used
beneficially.
Specific
Improvements are
being made as a
result of farm
economics. State
Engineer ' s powers
to require
efficiency of
water use are not
strong enough to
force specific
irrigation
practices .















WSA 11-245 (c)
authorizes conserva-
ion districts to
conduct demonstra-
tion projects, with
landowners ' consent ,
to conserve water.
WRS 41-285
authorizes irriga-
tion districts to
make rules and
regulations for the
use of water upon
lands of the
district.

Specif i c









There is little
economic incen-
tive to improve
efficiency in
Wyoming. Farmers
tend to use their
entire water
allotment . Return
flow salinity is
perceived as a
declining problem
in Wyoming since
many years of
Irrigation have
Leached out most
of salt. Irri-
gated agricul-
ture is viewed as
a very minor part
D£ the salinity
jroblem in Wyoming ;
natural salinity is
naj or. Greater
Crater storage
capacity would re-
sult in more effi-
cient irrigation
techniques .

-------
    15.   Promote conservation plans and cooperative agreements
         with individual  farm units, to encourage soil  conserva-
         tion,  reduce erosion, promote irrigation efficiency,
         etc.,  through improved farm operating practices.

         All  seven states authorize conservation districts  to  do this,

 and all currently help implement ASCS  and similar programs.   Local

 officials  establish priorities for federal funding and specify within

 limits  the percentage of federal funding which can go  (as  grants)  to

 farmers making various types of on-fara improvements.   By  changing

 priorities,  local district officials can change the emphasis  of federal

 programs to  those having a greater impact on salinity.  Thus,  state

 involvement  in these federal programs is already quite effective.   How-

 ever, since  the amount of funding of such programs usually falls well

 short of amounts requested,  there is considerable opportunity for

 state and local initiatives  to expand or augment the programs.   These

 initiatives  are discussed under Action 9 in Chapter V.
        -^Programs of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, conducted in cooperation with
local and state organizations.
                                72

-------
ACTION
15 . Promote con-
servation plans
and cooperative
agreements with
individual farm
units, to encour-
age soil con-
servation, reduce
erosion, promote
irrigation effi-
ciency, etc. ,
through improved
farm operating
practices .










LO








































H
oi
o
ffi
H
ED
























w
g
s
w
1;
I
ID





ARIZONA
Three statutes em-
power special
districts to im-
practices:
ARS 45-2054
for natural re-
source (soil) con-
servation districts;
ARS 45-935
for agricultural
improvement dis-
tricts; and
ARS 45-1578
for irrigation
districts.
ARS 45-2054
authorizes develop-
ment and publica-
tion of comprehen-
sive soil conserva-
tion plans.

Specific








The Salt River
Project has
administered a
successful IMS
program since
1965, involving
irrigation
scheduling , land
levelling, canal
lining, etc.
SCS works with lo-
cal conservatioa
districts. High-
est priority
programs are in
range management ,
including re-
seeding of vegeta-
t~ i on . Therp is
i T it . T- -
n^ring,

CALIFORNIA
PRC 9000
authorizes soil
conservation dis-
soil and water by
control of runoff,
improving farm
irrigation, storing
and distribution
of water with
consent of land-
owner .
PRC 9257
authorizes coopera-
tive agreements
with farmers.

Specific














State and local
irrigation dis-
tricts leave
to federal
government the
financial incen-
tives to make on-
farm improvements.
Palo Verde Irriga-
tion District is
studying ways
to improve
irrigation sys-
tems.







COLORADO
CRS 35-70-108
gives authority to
soil conservation
districts to
implement plans
for treatment ,
care and operation
of land . Section
109, which gave
land use authority,
was ruled unconsti-


Specific


















SCS priority
areas are:
establishing
vegetative
cover, terracing,
streambank stabi-
lization, and
measures (in-
cluding struc-
tures) to con-
trol erosion
and water run-
off.








NEVADA
NRS 548.375
gives conservation
districts authority
to develop com-
prehensive plans
for conservation
of resources , in-
cluding specifica-
tion of engineering
operations, meth-
ods of cultivation,


Specific


















SCS works with
local districts to
promote on- farm
improvements .
In Colorado River
Basin, highest
priority
improvements are
those to conserve
water, e.g. , land
levelling , and
to prevent soil
erosion.








NEW MEXICO
NMSA 45-5-59
authorizes soil
and water conserva-
tion districts to
conduct research
and (with land-
owner permission)
demonstration
projects to reduce
erosion and con-
serve water, and

conservation plans
and contract with
landowners to
implement such
plans.
NMSA 45-5-22
authorizes crea-
tion of watershed
districts as
subdivisions of
soil and water
conservation
districts.

Specific





Navaj o lands are
eroded from over-
grazing but , for
political reasons
(and limitation of
state authority)
grazing regulations
are not enforced in
New Mexico. There
is resistance to
controls over
agricultural prac-
tices . However ,
there is growing
talk about new
state control
erosion on
Indian lands.


(continued)
UTAH
UCA 65-1-82
authorizes State
Land Board to
bring action to
limit grazing on
privately .owned
watershed land to
protect propert y .
UCA 62-1-8
authorizes soil
conservation

duct research , and
projects (with
landowner approval,
on private lands)
to conserve and
utilize water, and
to develop compre-
hensive plans for
the conservation
of soil and water,
including specifi-
cation of methods
of cultivation .

Specific





Highest priority
SCS actions in-
volve reducing
sediment load
entering water
courses from farm
and rangelands ;
accelerating con-
servation measures
on privately
owned land for
erosion control ,
sediment reduc-
tion and water
retention ;
irrigation systems
to promote water
use efficiency.



WYOMING
WSA 41-1.42
authorizes water
development
program to loan
money at low
interest to
water districts
and individual
farmers for
on- farm improve-
ments .
WSA 11-245
authorizes con-
servation dis-
tricts to preserve
lands, prevent
erosion , and
maintain water
quality through
construction
of improvements ,
development of
conservation
plans, etc.
WSA 11-246 allows
conservation dis-
tricts to adopt
ordinances govern-
ing use of lands
with 75% approval
in referendum.
Specific
Conservation
plans are the
responsibility
of the USDA
Soil Conserva-
tion Service
(federal) and
the Soil Con-
servation Dis-
tricts (state)
coordinated
through the
Wyoming Conser-
vation Commis-
sion. Parti-
untary and
about half the
operators in
Wyoming have a
conservation
(continued)

-------
15.  (continued)
ACTION
15 . Promote con-
servation plans
and cooperative
agreements with
individual farm
units , to encour-
age soil con-
servation, reduce
erosion, promote
irrigation effi-
ciency, etc . ,
through improved
farm operating
practices .



-J




rUS (continued)
H
en
H
CX
CJ




ARIZONA









CALIFORNIA









COLORADO









NEVADA








J
NEW MEXICO
Natural Resource
Conservat ion Com-
mission is begin-
ning 208 planning,
considering actions
to limit soil
erosion.








UTAH ' WYOMING
• plan. In
208 planning
it has been
1 suggested that if
] conservation
; plans become
mandatory, this
would be strongly
resisted.
SCS priority areas
are correcting soil
erosion and water
pollution through
water management and
runoff control
measures.






-------
    16.  Encourage use of sprinkler and trickle water application
        systems.

        All seven states give conservation or irrigation districts

responsibility for encouraging more efficient irrigation systems,

and most also authorize districts to purchase and resell machinery

and supplies to water users.  Sprinklers are used in all seven states

of the basin.  Sprinkler systems have high capital costs, but water

application efficiency is also high.  Where water is scarce and/or

expensive, and where labor costs (of ditch maintenance) are high,

sprinklers are more likely to be used.  The trend to sprinklers

could be accelerated through additional state and local programs

which demonstrate their economic advantages, but demonstration pro-

grams are unlikely to be effective when economic advantages are

not present.
                                75

-------
ACTION

ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO NEVADA NEW HEX] CO UTAH WYOMING
16. Encourage use ARS 45-2054
of sprinkler and ! ni*,~~ ~~.ii „ 	 ~~-
trickle water appli-
cation systems.
















^
5
IS








•~j
vation districts
authority to con-
duct demonstration
projects and to
landowners, etc.
to promote pro-
grams on cultiva-
tion methods.
Prior approval by
irrigation dis-
tricts is required.

Sped fi c
HI
















** ; 	 u
Although state has


i




no authority on
Colorado River
Indian Reserva-
tion, many farmers
who lease this land
use sprinkler
irrigation to
> ' maximize efficiency
< of scarce water.
.j,'<
=!
<
c^


^
S
•§

"


i
!

























PRC 9259
authorizes soil
conservation dis-
tricts to conduct
demonstration
projects with
sent.
PRC 9261
authorizes dis-
tricts to develop
soil and water
conservation plans.
PRC 9264 autho-
rizes districts to
establish standards
of cropping and
as a condition of
spending funds on
these lands .

Specific





Department of
Water Resources
encourages in-
crease in use of
sprinkler systems ,
now used in 17
percent of state' s
irrigated agri-
culture but not
in Colorado Basin
where gravity
systems predomi-
nate.
Low water costs
in Imperial
Valley ($3/af)
make the invest-
ment in sprinklers
economically
impractical.
However , sprinklers
have other
advantages, e.g.,
reduce labor,
help seed germi-
nation, and
their use is
increasing.



CRS 35-70-108
authorizes soil
conservation dis-
tricts to conduct
demonstration
projects and to
landowners on
water conservation
proj ects .

Sped fi c














Southwestern
Colorado has a
promising experi-
mental sprinkler
system. There
is a cooperative
program involv-
ing CWCB, ARS,
USGS, USER, SCS,
ERS, ditch com-
panies and
farmers in Grand
Valley. The
problem is in
demonstrating
enough financial
savings to in-
duce farmers to
make the invest-
ment .
State Engineer's
Office fears
salt buildup in
Grand Valley if
sprinkler irri-
gation is used.





NRS 548.350
authorizes conser-
vation districts to
construct demon-
stration projects.
548.355
gives power to
control methods of
cultivation to
these districts.

Specific














In the Colorado
River Basin,
sprinkler irriga-
tion is the pri-
mary irrigation
method. There is
little saline
return flow to the
Colorado from
Nevada irrigated
agriculture.




















NMSA 45-5-59
authorizes soil
and water conserva-
tion districts to
conduct research
and (with land-
demonstration
projects to reduce
erosion and con-
serve water, and
to prepare farm
conservation plans
and contract with
landowners to
implement such
plans. NMSA 45-5-22
tion of watershed
districts as
subdivisions of
soil and water
conservation
districts .

Specific


Sprinklers are
encouraged in
tfavaj o Irrigation
Project, but
this only helps
when excess water
leaches out salts
and brines from
land; most irri-
gated land in New
Mexico is not very
saline.



















UCA 62-1-8
conservation dis-
tricts to conduct
demonstration
projects and to
landowners on
water conservation
projects .
UCA 73-7-11
authorizes irriga-
tion districts
to establish
equitable rules
and regulations
for the use of
UCA 73-9-13
conservancy
districts' to allot
water to lands , in
amounts not to
exceed the amount
which can be used
beneficially.
Specific
Division of Water
Resources has
revolving fund to
construct water
development and
conservation proj-
ects for irriga-
tion companies,
conservancy dis-
tricts, and other
water-using orga-
nizations . Numer-
ous sprinkler
irrigation projects
have been funded in
the last 30 years.
Utah State Univer-
sity is conducting
research in sprin-
kler and trickle
irrigation. In
areas of saline
soils, sprinkler
irrigation is not
always practical —
flood irrigation
is necessary to
leach out salt
from land.


WSA 11-245 (c)
tion districts to
conduct demonstra-
tion projects, with
landowners ' consent
WSA 41-285
authorizes irriga-
tion districts to
make rules and
regulations for the
use of water upon
lands of the
district .

Specific









State Dept. of
Agriculture
is not actively
promoting. One
objection is
that reductions
in return flow
would cause
low river flows
in dry months ,
and heavy flows
in wet months.
Present use of
flood irrigation
tends to level
flows, by using
soil moisture
as a buffer,
Another objec-
tion is fear of
salt buildup if
less water is
used. Never-
theless, use of
sprinklers is
growing as
a labor saving
device. DEPAD
is making numerous
loans for sprinkler
irrigation sys terns .

-------
   17.  Make improvements in irrigation water conveyance systems
        to reduce water loss and seepage, e.g., install pipes
        or impermeable linings in canal-to-farm conveyance systems
        and in on-farm laterals and ditches.

        All seven states give authority to irrigation districts (and

similar districts, such as soil conservation districts) to construct,

improve or rehabilitate water conveyance systems.  Utah specifically

authorizes the State Engineer to require improvements in irrigation

water systems to prevent water waste.   However, the other states

leave the initiative to the local districts to make improvements,

which come about for several reasons:   to conserve water where it  is

more scarce and expensive; to reduce labor costs, where unlined

canals become blocked with weed growth; or through the influence of

federal or state conservation education programs.  Generally,  im-

provements are made because of economic benefits, so there does not

appear to be a significant need to accelerate direct action by state

or local agencies.  However, state encouragement of needed local

improvements could be expanded through a loan or grant program.

        State financial incentives for improving on-farm irrigation

practices are more fully discussed in Action 9, Chapter V, as a

proposed action for each state.
                              77

-------
ACTION
17 . Make improve-
ments in irriga-
tion water con-
to reduce water
loss and seepage,
e.g., install
pipes or imper-
meable linings in
canal- to- farm
conveyance sys-
tems and in on-
farm laterals and
ditches.












-j
CO








































£H
E-i
1


-------
   18.  Enforce salinity standards for municipal treatment
        plant discharge.

        All of the basin states exercise some control over wastewater

treatment facilities; each of these states has adopted the Forum stan-

dards on salinity; and all seven are under the NPDES permit system,

with or without their own enforcement programs.

        The states believe that the NPDES permits will be an adequate

tool for the enforcement of salinity standards for municipal treatment

plant discharge whenever those standards are set.  They feel that any

additional control needed could be exercised under already existing

state authority concerning municipal wastewater facilities.

        Arizona exercises control over treatment plants (ARS 36-1856.9,.10)

in conjunction with its permit system (ARS 36-1859), with Phoenix

already monitoring under NPDES permit for salinity.  Compliance monitor-

ing is not a high priority for the rest of the state as a result of

limited water quality personnel and funding.  Public health hazards

have a higher priority than salinity for water quality action, especial-

ly since Phoenix is challenging the NPDES system in court.

        Wastewater treatment facilities are regulated in California

(WC 13626) in conjunction with the power to set standards (WC 179)

and the adoption of the Forum Document.   The Water Quality Control

Board has adopted enforcement criteria subject to EPA action, and

the City of Needles has been under Water Quality Control Board

salinity standards for at least 15 years.

        The Department of Health in Colorado has authority to set stan-

dards for and approve construction of wastewater treatment facilities
                                79

-------
 (CRS 25-l-107.e, r), while the Water Quality Control Division gives




technical advice, technical service, and issues discharge permits




 (CRS 25-8-308.b, CRS 25-8-501).  There are no salinity standards in




wastewater facility design criteria.  The compliance monitoring pro-




gram is being used to make a study of discharge components.  And the




feeling is that there is no practical way to prevent, control or treat




municipal salinity, at least without investing in high cost tertiary




treatment.




        Nevada has authority to examine and approve treatment plants




 (NRS 445.214  [3]) and to require compliance with effluent standards




before any discharge permit is issued (NRS 445.231 [C]).  They are now




writing regulations for NPDES permits with the Forum Document standards




comprising a portion of their efforts.




        New Mexico's Environmental Improvement Board sets regulations




for wastewater disposal (NMSA 12-12-11. A[3]) and the Water Quality




Control Commission requires filing of plans and specifications for




wastewater treatment plants.  However, EPA has not set applicable




salinity standards, although informational monitoring is underway.




        Utah exercises full control over wastewater facilities (UCA 26-




15-5.C) in the plans, construction, and operation and maintenance




areas, and requires permits to build, modify or operate such a plant




 (UCA 73-14-5.a).  They are ready to begin "polished secondary" treat-




ment for public health purposes, but EPA has refused to fund the in-




cremental cost of the higher treatment requirements.  Utah





includes salinity control  as a part of the NPDES permit requirements.
                                80

-------
         The Department of Environmental Quality in Wyoming may,




but does not currently, issue permits for the construction or opera-




tion of wastewater facilities (WSA 35-502.18) along with the permits




for discharge, certification of operation and maintenance competency,




and certification of compliance with construction standards (WSA 35-




502.19).  The Forum standards are being enforced insofar as they can be.
                               81

-------
ACTION
18. Enforce sa-
linity standards
for municipal
treatment plant
discharge.


















CD
NJ


















>>
M
o
H
<













en
^
5
H
CO
H
•z
w
&
;=>
O


ARIZONA
ARS 36-1856.9, .10
Control over
treatment plants
in conjunction
with ARS 36-1859
permit system are
powers of the
Dept. of Health
Services and the
Water Quality Con-
trol Council.

Nonspecific




Have adopted Forum
document but have
few monitoring
funds — not high
priority. Phoenix
is monitoring un-
der NPDES permit
but challenging
the permit system
in court.



CALIFORNIA
WC 13626 Regulates
wastewater treat-
ment plants in
conjunction with
WC 179 powers to
set s tandards for
Water quality as
part of the obliga-
tion of the Water
Resources Control
Board .

Nonspecific




The Water Quality
Control Board has
adopted enforce-
ment criteria
subject to EPA
action. Needles
has enforced
salinity standards
for at least 15
years.



i
i






COLORADO
The Dept. of
Health has the
authority to set
standards and ap-
prove wastewater
treatment plant
plans, CRS-25-1-
107. e,r. The
•Jater Quality Con-
trol Division
*ives technical
advice and service
and issues dis-
charge permits .
CRS 25-8-308. b,
CRS 25-8-501.
Nonspecific
to salinity men-
NEVADA
The right given by
NRS 445.214 (3)
to examine and
okay treatment
plants, and
445.231 (c) to
demand compliance
with effluent
standards before
a permit is is-
sued, are func-
tions of the En-
vironmental Pro-
tection Services .

Specific

Are writing regu-
tioned in design lations for NPDES
criteria, and permits and have
tertiary treatment {adopted Forum
would have high 'document. The
cost. Do have .real need is for
compliance [separation of ef-
monitoring which Ifluent waters.
;is being used for ^No enforcement
a study of dis- iin the communities.
charges . There
Ls no practical ]
jay to prevent , j
control or treat
nunicipal salinity.






NEW MEXICO
NMSA 12-12-11. A
(3) The Environ-
mental Improvement
Board sets regula-
tions on liquid
waste , and the
Water Quality
Control Commission
requires filing
of plans and
specification for
wastewater treat-
ment plants .

Nonspecific


Adopted Forum
standards. EPA
hasn' t set stan-
dards, but infor-
mational monitor-
ing is underway,
and effluent limi-
tations have been
established with
the NPDES program.







UTAH
UCA 26-15-5 (c)
Plans , construc-
tion, operation
and management of
treatment plants ,
and 73-14-5 (a)
permits to build ,
modify or operate
the same are all
under the control
of the Board of
Health.

Sped fi c



EPA won't fund
incremental costs
of "polished
secondary" treat-
ment . Utah in-
cludes salinity
enforcement as a
part of the NPDES
permit r^auirements








WYOMING
WSA 35-502.18 (ii)
The Dept. of Envi-
ronmental Quality may
issue permits to
construct or oper-
ate wastewater
facilities, and
35-502.19 permits
for discharge,
O&M competency
and certifying
compliance with
construction
standards .

Specific

Adopted Forum
standards and
have compliance
monitoring .
The standards
are being enforced
insofar as
they can be.










-------
    19.  Enforce  salinity limits  for  industrial discharge into
        municipal  sewer systems.

        The  statutory  authority  and  current  status of action in each

 basin  state  must,  for  proper  consideration of this action, be viewed

 in  conjunction with  the authorities  and activities applicable to the

 enforcement  of salinity standards  for municipal  treatment plant discharge.

 The powers present for that action should be complementary to the more

 general authorities  for control  of industrial discharge.


          The states  believe that the industrial  discharge standards

 set forth in the Forum Document  will be met  by the NPDES permits

 in  conjunction with  existing  regulation of industrial discharge.

 If  further action  is necessary,  municipal treatment plants could

 be  required, under their permits,  to take action against indus-

 trial  discharges into  their systems.

        Arizona  states that industrial discharges must meet quality

 standards and must be  properly permitted (ARS 36-1858, 1859),  and the

 Department of Health can issue orders prohibiting or abating dis-

 charges, and controlling disposal  systems (ARS 36-1856).  However,  the

 state does not have NPDES authority and does have a policy to avoid

 controls in  order  to encourage development.   Also, salinity regulations

 have not yet been  promulgated.

        California also requires quality considerations and reporting

 of discharges (WC  13260,  13263), and has requirements for point source

 discharges.   Industrial wastes are under NPDES permit and the geothermal

 industry is under an absolute discharge prohibition.   Los Angeles is

using a variable fee schedule to encourage reuse and in-house treatment

of industrial wastes.

                                83

-------
        Colorado has a permit system applicable to industry
501) with a zero discharge program for power plants, which generally
have their own recycling systems.  In addition, the cities would be
asked  to act  if an  industrial problem occurred, although there are few

salt Loading  industries.
         Similarly,  Nevada has a  permit program with enforcement
authority  (NRS  445.221,  224, 231), which requires  consistency with
 treatment  plans,  rules,  regulations,  effluent and  pretreatment  stan-
dards.  Industrial  discharge is  limited by  ponding in  a  program which
 has been accepted and  is enforced.
         In New  Mexico  regulations are written to avoid problems  as they
arise  (NMSA 75-89-4) and are drawn to work  in conjunction with  the dis-
 charge permits  (NMSA 75-39-4.e.).  The state is incorporating regula-
 tions  to prohibit the  conveyance of  fly ash and is encouraging  zero
 discharge from  new  power plants. All municipalities have  industrial
 waste  ordinances, but  salinity  is not as yet a controlled  parameter.
         Utah has standards for  waste discharges   UCA 26-15-5.5 [b])
with industrial discharges under control since 1953.  A  construction
permit is  required  for any municipal  or industrial wastewater treat-
ment works.   Industrial  salt discharges by  industry to the Colorado
River  must be justified  under the Forum policy of  February 28,  1977.
No  funding is given to municipal wastewater treatment plants unless
Utah state standards are met.
         Control  over  wastewater discharge  in Wyoming has been
maintained through  the use of permits (WSA  35-502.18 (v))-  Since the
1950's  there  has been  no allowable discharge of salt in industrial
effluent, and pond  seepage in controlled in terms  of salt load.  Zero
discharge from industrial sources is encouraged wherever downstream
flow is not suitable for use in water supply.   Industrial wastewater
impact  on municipal treatment plant systems is the prime factor con-
sidered.
                                84

-------
ACTION
19. Enforce sa-
linity limits for
industrial dis-
charge into
municipal sewer
systems .
















CO
Ul















>.
M
O
E^
"^




ARIZONA
ARS 36-1858, 1859
Discharge must
meet quality stan-
dards and have
permit. ARS 36-
1856 gives the
Dept. of Health
power to issue
orders prohibiting
or abating dis-
charges , and con-
trolling disposal
systems .

Nonspecific
|No NPDES autho-







rity; policy is to
avoid controls and
encourage develop-
ment .



x
p
s

z
S
3








CALIFORNIA
WC 13260, 13263
Reporting (permit)
of discharges
must account for
water quality,
with no vested in-
terest allowed in
Water Resource
Control Board per-
mitted discharges.

Nonspecific
COLORADO
CRS 25-8-501
Discharge permits
are the tool of
the Water Duality
Control Division.

Nonspecific








State does have
requirements for
point-source dis-
charges. These
wastes are un-
der NPDES permit.
Los Angeles is
using variable
charges to en-
courage reuse and
in-house treat-
ment . Geothermal
industry is under
an absolute dis-
charge prohibi-


State requires
zero discharge
from power plants.
Majority have
recycling systems .
The cities would
be asked to act
if an industrial
problem occurred,
but there are not
too many salt-
generating
industries.


tion.
NEVADA NEW MEXICO
UTAH
NRS 445.221, .224, NMSA 75-39-4 .d . ,UCA '6-15-5 (5[b])
.231 The Envirci,- "Regulations
mental Protection 't° prevent or abate
Services issue pollution in any
point- source dis- ^specific area or
charge permits Watershed by what
consistent with
treatment plans ,
rules and regula-
tions , and effluent
and pretreatment
standards .
the Water Quality
Control Commission
considers practi-
cal with 75-39-4.e
discharge permits .

i/Vonspecific
Specific

Industrial dis-
charge is limited
by ponding, and
this has been


Are prohibiting
conveyance of fly
ash, and encour-
age zero discharge
accepted and is |in new power
enforced .










plants. All
nunicipalities
nave industrial
waste ordinances
meeting EPA mini-
mums , but there
are no numerical
salinity standards.



Standards for
trade waste dis-
charges can be
set by the Board
of Health.

Nonspecific







Industrial dis-
charge controlled
since 1953.
Standards are
specifically in-
cluded and no
funding is given
to municipal
plants unless
discharge is
controlled.





WYOMING
WSA 35-502.18 (i)
Control over pub-
lic water supply
through permits
over any dis-
charge of pollu-
tion or wastes is
a power of the
Dept. of Environ-
mental Quality.

Nonspecific



Zero discharge is
encouraged . No industrial
salt disch»r<*e since
' 50s t and no pond
seepage allowed
for salt loaded
holdings. The
impact on municipal
treatment plant
systems is the
prime factor .






-------
    20.  Require in-house treatment of manufacturing wastewater.
        The states believe that the NPDES permits, in conjunction
with existing state authority over wastewater treatment  (e.g.,
requiring pretreatment of wastewater if standards are not met),
provides adequate control over industrial discharges.
        The degree of treatment for each type of waste can be pre-
scribed in Arizona (ARS 36-1857.A  [14J), and officials have the
authority to move against point sources.  Treatment is required in
some instances; for example, some copper mines must treat before
reusing or releasing wastewater.  California also relies on its permit
system (WC 13260, 13263) to approve the method of disposal of waste-
water, preferably on-site.  In-house treatment per se is not required.
        Colorado has permit authority  (CRS 25-8-501) and cease
and desist power  (CRS 25-8-307) to  protect water  quality.  Require-
ment  for pretreatment if  standards  are not met is a standard concept
applied on a case-by-case basis.   The approach is to tell industry
the results needed and  let  them determine the method; for example,
the sugar industry is making use of internal pollution controls, to
assure that their effluent meets desired quality standards.
        In Nevada the Environmental Protection Service's permits
for point source discharge require that wastewater treatment stan-
dards be met, and permits can be withheld until there is compliance
with pretreatment standards.  Mine effluent is under permit, and
there is a penalty rate structure based on composition in addition
to volume of effluent.  Although there is no statewide action on in-
house treatment, it is anticipated in the future as a conservation
measure.
                                 86

-------
        New Mexico sets pretreatment standards (NMSA 75-39-4) and re-




quires some industries to pretreat before discharging into sewage




plants.  Where federal law takes precedence the NPDES permit requires




in-house treatment.




        Utah has a statutory policy requiring treatment of wastewater




to allow for further beneficial use (UCA 73-14-1).  Case-by-case




standards are being used in requiring in-house treatment of industrial




wastewater.  This program is not fully implemented, but in the




meantime cities must require industry to treat its discharge.




        In Wyoming the permit authority (WSA 35-502.18 [i]) along with




the ability to promulgate rules and regulations (WSA 35-502.12,  a[e])




backs the discharge permit requirement for the pretreatment of




industrial wastewater.
                              87

-------
ACTION
20. Require in-
house treatment
of manufacturing
uastewater .




















03
CX













H
P^
O
g
§










3
Jj
H
-_^
'•z.
1
u


ARIZONA
ARS 36-1857 (A[14]>
Degree of treatment
for each type of
waste can be pre-
scribed by the
Water Quality
Control Council .

Nonspecific






Has authority to
move against
point-sources .
Treatment is re-
quired in some
instances; for
example, some
copper mines must
treat water be-
fore reusing or
releasing.




CALIFORNIA
As above (Act ior
19) WC 13260,
13263 Reporting
of discharges
must account for
water quality.

Nonspecific







COLORADO
CRS 25-8-307
Cease and desist
power if quality
is abused , and
CRS 25-8-501
discharges per-
mits are the
authorities of
the Water Quality
Control Division.

,Vonspeci-fic



Requirements for JPre treatment re-
approval of
quired if stan-
method of dis- ;dards not met.
posal of waste- iThis is a stan-
water , and are
dard concept with
looking to on- ja case by case
site disposal.
Do not require
in-house treat-
ment per se .
Also see Action
19 above.



approach to tell
industry the re-
sults needed and
let them determine
the method used.
For example ,
sugar plants use
internal pollu-
tion controls .
NEVADA
NRS 445.221, .224
Permit for point-
source must meet
wastewater treat-
ment plans , and
the Environmental
Protection Ser-
vices can with-
hold permit until
pretreatment stan-
dards are complied
with.

Sped fi c

Mine effluent is
under permit.
There is a penalty
rate structure
based on composi-
tion rather than
volume of effluent.
No statewide
activity, but is
down the road as
a conservation
measure.



NEW MEXICO
NMSA 75-39-4. d
Pretreatment stan-
dards can be set
by the Water Qual-
ity Control
Commission .

Nonspecific







Allowed by stat-
ute. Some indus-
tries must pre-
treat before dis-
charge into
sewage plants .
The NPDES permit
requires in-house
treatment , where
federal control
occurs .




UTAH
UCA 73-14-1
Policy to allow
no waste without
treatment to al-
low more bene-
ficial use is the
mandate to the
Board of Health.

Nonspecifi c





Using case by case
standards . The
program is not
fully implemented
but the cities
must make indus-
try pretreat cer-
tain discharges
for city to
obtain state aid .





WYOMING
WSA 35-502. 12 (a)
Environmental
Quality Council
has power to
promulgate rules
and regulations
upon recommenda-
tion of the
administration
and advisory
board . And
Action 19 , above,
permits .

General
The issuance of
a discharge
permit requires
pretreatnent .












-------
   21.  Require plugging of oil and gas wells.




        Each of the basin states has an active Oil and Gas Commission




responsible for the proper drilling, maintenance and plugging of




oil and gas wells.  The commissions' enforcement of regulations




appears to adequately control the discharge of saline water from oil




and gas wells into surface waters or into surrounding aquifers.




(In contrast, state action to control water wells and exploratory




drill holes, e.g., for seismic exploration, often is insufficient.




Action 4 covers this topic.)




        The actual wording on the respective statutes of the seven




basin states is very similar and certainly the intent is the same.




In Arizona, the Oil and Gas Commission requires the drilling,  casing




and plugging of wells in a manner to prevent pollution of fresh




water by oil, gas, or saltwater (ARS 27-516).  Similarly, in Cali-




fornia the Division of Oil and Gas supervises the drilling, operation,




maintenance, and abandonment of wells in order to prevent damage to




life, health, property and natural resources (Pub.R. 3106).  There




is an additional statute requiring a notice of intent on plugging




(Pub.R. 3203).




        In Colorado, the Oil and Gas Commission has authority to require




plugging of seismic holes or exploratory wells to prevent pollution




of fresh water by saltwater (CRS 34-60-106).  Nevada's statute is




worded very closely to the Colorado law.  The Commission has juris-




diction to require the plugging of wells to prevent the pollution




of fresh water supplies by saltwater (NRS 522.040).
                                89

-------
        New Mexico's Oil and Gas Commission is authorized  to  regulate




 the disposition of water produced or used in drilling or producing




 oil and gas in order to protect against contamination of fresh water




 supplies designated by the State Engineer (NMSA 65-3-11 [15]). Both




 the Utah and Wyoming statutes are worded in a similar manner.




 UCA 40-6-5(c) in Utah and WSA 30-219 (C), supplemented by WSA 35-502.




 22:1,  in Wyoming essentially state that the  appropriate state agency




has the authority to plug oil and gas  wells  to prevent the pollution




of fresh water by saltwater.
                                90

-------
ACTION
21. Require plug^
ging of abandoned
oil wells.





















vn













>-i
^
x
o
?
bi
<












w
B
g
uo
H
z:
y
=
u
ARIZONA
ARS 27-516
The Commission
shall require the
drilling, casing
and plugging of
wells in a man-
ner to prevent
pollution of
fresh water
supplies by oil ,
gas or salt-
water.

Specific



Monitor drilling
to prevent escape
of brine ; require
bond to insure
capping of aban-
doned wells; hold-
ing ponds must be
lined when ground
is permeable.





CALIFORNIA
WC 3106 Supervi-
sor shall super-
vise the drilling,
op er at Ion, main-
tenance , and
abandonment of
wells as to pre-
vent damage to
life, health,
property and
natural resources.
WC 3203 Concerns
notice of intent
on plugging.

Specific

Complies with
statutory regula-
tions covering
plugging of
abandoned oil
and gas wells .
Utilizes state
funds to plug
those wells where
an operator
can no longer
be identified.


COLORADO
CRS 34-60-106
C. The commis-
sion has authority
to require plug-
ging of seismic
holes or explora-
tory wells to
prevent pollution
of fresh water
by saltwater.

Specific





Strongly complies
with rules on
plugging of
abandoned wells.










NEVADA
NRS 522.040 The
commission has
jurisdiction to
require the plug-
ging of wells to
prevent the pollu-
tion of fresh water
supplies by salt-
water.

Specific






Enforces the
plugging of wells.












NEW MEXICO
NMSA 65-3-11 (15)
The commission is
authorized to
regulate the dis-
position of water
produced or used
in drilling or
producing oil and
gas in order to
protect against
contamination of
fresh water sup-
plies designated
by the State Engi-
neer.

Sped fi c
Enforces plugging
of abandoned oil
and gas wells .
Required posting
of bond by
operator. Pending
legislation in
1977 to provide
state funds for
plugging old,
abandoned wells
where no
operator can be
identified .
UTAH
UCA 40-6-5
(C. ) Board has
authority to
require the
plugging of wells
to prevent pollu-
tion of fresh
water supplies by
saltwater .

Specific






Plugs oil and
gas wells and
requires permit
for drilling .










WYOMING
WSA 30-219
C. The commis-
sion has the
authority to plug
oil and gas wells
to prevent the
pollution of
fresh water by
saltwater.

Specific






State has
requirements for
Owner's Well
Plugging and
Repair bonds
on all wells.









-------
Actions Not Feasible in the Colorado River Basin

        The following suggested actions have been investigated and

judged against the selection criteria listed in the first section

of this chapter.  They have been found infeasible.  Appendix C con-

tains a discussion of the reasons for infeasibility, and includes

matrices describing authority for the actions in case future changes

in circumstances might cause the actions to become feasible.

    22.   Establish an interstate salinity compact  to develop
         uniform programs  for  controlling discharges and
         enforcing in-stream salinity standards.

    23.   Control phreatophytes along streams  and irrigation
         canals to reduce  quantity of water lost  through
         transpiration.

    24.   Establish maintenance of adequate (or  minimum)  stream
         flow as a beneficial  use to promote  water quality
         goals.  Stream flow maintenance may  also  benefit
         fisheries.

    25.   Establish a  division  of the Attorney General's
         Office,  assigned  the  specific function of enforcing
         the  "beneficial use"  limit  of water  rights.   Such enforce-
         ment  would be directed  to eliminating  water wastage and
         promoting efficient water use.

    26.   To reduce salinity  from agriculture, control types  of
         fertilizer used  to  avoid excess salinity  in return
         flow.

    27.   Treat  irrigation  return flow for  salinity,  through
         ion  exchange or solar distillation processes.

    28.   To reduce salinity  from municipal sources,  require  reuse
         of wastc-'watcT  to  reduce.' municipal  wator demand.


Actions  Determined to be  Out-of-Scope to  This  Study

         Although  they may meet  most or  all of  the selection criteria,

five of  the suggested actions were  determined  by  both Denver Research

Institute and  EPA to be out-of-scope to  this study,  for  reasons
                                 92

-------
discussed below.   Three are structural actions which are intended to

reduce the amount of salinity from natural sources:

    29.  plug salt springs

    30.  divert highly saline natural waters or abandoned mine
         drainages into desalinization facilities (desalting plants,
         evaporation ponds, collectors for special controlled uses
         such as power plant cooling, deep well injections, etc.)

    31.  channelize and line streams, or route streams away from
         highly saline areas.

 These actions were determined to be out-of-scope since responsibility

 for dealing with natural salinity has been assumed, wholly or in large

 part, by the federal government.  This study is limited to state and

 local government actions.

         Action 32, to reduce the volume of water exports from the

 Colorado River Basin and thus provide more water to dilute the salt

 load, was determined to be out-of-scope because it involves highly

 controversial political issues and is an action which could not be

 implemented without fundamental changes in state water law or state

 constitutions.

         Action 33, augmenting stream flow either through precipi-

 tation modification or through large-scale water imports into the

 Colorado River Basin, was determined to be out-of-scope for a combination

 of reasons:  there are significant political and legal barriers; and

 the actions are now and are expected to continue to be initiated

 largely by the federal government rather than by state and local

 governments.
                                93

-------
                             CHAPTER V




          MANAGEMENT ACTIONS PROPOSED FOR IMPLEMENTATION







        This chapter describes and discusses the 12 management actions




proposed for implementation in the various states of the Colorado




River Basin.  Some of the 12 actions are not proposed for adoption




in certain of the states, although all are proposed for most states




in the basin.




        Each of the 12 actions is described in a background section




common to all states.  The subsequent state-by-state discussion of




each action describes the agency which would have responsibility for




implementation, the legal authority, and the current status of the




action.  In addition, each of the possible salinity actions has been




rated as to feasibility in three areas:  legal, political, and ad-




ministrative.  Legal feasibility means that the action falls within




the statutory authorities and powers of the state.  Political




feasibility means that groups which express themselves in the politi-




cal process, through such techniques as lobbying and influence in




policy decisions (including decisions by state legislatures) would




find the action generally acceptable.  Administrative feasibility




means that the action could be taken with a minimum of change in the




appropriate agency.  An example of administrative feasibility of an




action might be the ability to take the action with no additional




appropriations.




        The ratings as to potential feasibility of each action are




summarized in a simple matrix form, as follows:
                                 94

-------
                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:    Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal
        Political
        Administrative	
        Two other ratings in addition to "feasible" have been developed:

"questionable" and "major obstacles."  "Questionable" means that ob-

stacles exist that threaten full implementation of the action.  For

example:

        • Legal—clear statutory authority is lacking, although
               the action appears to have general or nonspecific
               authority.  Perhaps new case law will be necessary
               to clarify the legality of the action.

        • Political—certain important parties-at-interest are
               likely to be opposed to the action, although it
               is unclear how severe their hostility will be, or
               how effectively their objections can be overcome
               through compromise.

        • Administrative—the implementation of the action will
               put financial and/or procedural burdens on the
               agency which would be responsible for its adminis-
               tration, or would require a major change from
               past practice or precedent.

An evaluation of "questionable" means that additional effort, e.g., in

changing attitudes or clarifying authority or policy, will be necessary

for the action to be implemented, at least fully, but that this may be

accomplished in time.

        "Major Obstacles" means that severe barriers to implementation

of the action are apparent.  For example:

        • Legal—no direct statutory authority is apparent,
               although the action is not specifically barred
               by statute.  A test of the action would probably
                                 95

-------
               lead to a legal trial, and a favorable verdict
               (or new legislation) would be required before
               the action could be implemented generally.

        • Political—the action would be severely resisted by
               important parties-at-interest, so the action
               could probably be implemented only in part, or
               applied only in the more critical cases that
               cause salinity.  To be implemented more widely,
               a forceful state policy initiative or a defi-
               nite mandate (e.g., by referendum) would be
               required.

        • Administrative—the action varies greatly from past
               practice or conflicts with state policy, or
               would require a major increase in funding and
               personnel.

An evaluation of "major obstacles" means that the resistance to this

action might be so intense that significant delays in full implementa-

tion would occur—although a partial implementation might be possible.

        Following the discussion of the recommended actions, a final

section of this chapter analyzes the overall political feasibility

of adopting and implementing each of them.  This section includes an

identification of the parties-at-interest, that is, the organizations

or identifiable groups of persons who share a common interest and who

are significantly affected, for better or worse, by the adoption of a

salinity control policy.  Nearly all of the actions will encounter

opposition from one or another special interest groups.  Depending on

the severity of negative impact upon these parties-at-interest, and

upon how directly they are affected, political opposition will be en-

countered by those attempting to implement each action.  Such opposition

will, in the end, determine the ultimate feasibility of the action.
                                 96

-------
    1.  Regulate irrigation water use so that the water rights
        holder reduces excess use and implements waste control
        measures.  This may be done by:
         (a)  Direct action by the agency administering water
             rights, to limit or control amounts of water
             diverted if waste occurs; or
         (b)  Imposing sanctions by the State Engineer, irriga-
             tion district or other appropriate agency, on
             water users using excessive amounts of water.

        Background of the action.  This dual-approach action is proposed

as a means of reducing the excess application of water in irrigated

agriculture, in the belief that such excess water use causes excess

pickup of salts from some soils and carries these salts in return

flow into the surface waters.  This action, likely to be the most con-

troversial of the 12 recommended actions, presumes that state govern-

ment administrative initiatives can cause irrigators to reduce their

excess application of water to crops.

        Two approaches are proposed:  (a) direct action by the State

Engineer's Office (or other agency that administers water rights) to

shut a headgate or otherwise limit or control water diversion if

waste of water occurs; and (b) imposing sanctions, i.e., fines or

other penalties for water waste.  The feasibility of each approach

is rather questionable and will be further explored.

        Direct administrative control.  Western water law states that

the "basis, measure, and limit" of a water right is the beneficial

use amount (in California, "reasonable" is the term instead of "bene-

ficial").  The statutory wording further specifies that "waste is the

antithesis of beneficial use."  Nevertheless, in many cases water

rights have been adjudicated in amounts which exceed those needed for

crop growth.   (That is,  excess to the amounts needed for growth of any
                                97

-------
of the crops normally grown in the locality; because choice of crop




modifies water quantity requirements, it is hard to define a quantity




of water necessary for "normal beneficial use.")  This proposed action




provides that state authorities responsible for the administration




of water rights control water diversions more strictly than is done at




present, limiting the amount of irrigation water to no more than the




minimum needed to achieve existing consumptive use, plus a necessary




leaching fraction (i.e., the salt pickup essential to plant growth).




Although this action appears on the surface to do no more than to call




for stricter enforcement of present water law, in practice it would




represent an administrative modification of the extent of a water




right, as currently regulated and enforced.  In other words, the state




would administratively modify the quantity of water stated in an ex-




isting, adjudicated water right, based on a new determination of the




limit of beneficial use to which the water would be put.  This action




would probably be viewed by most affected irrigators as an action




akin to a confiscation of a portion of a property right without com-




pensation.




        Administratively, the action would require a large increase in




the number of personnel administering water rights, who would need to




observe water use by farmers, judge the "beneficial use amount" ac-




cording to new criteria, and enforce this by closing headgates or per-




haps by controlling the quantity or timing of water releases requested




by irrigators.




        Such action, of course, need not be carried out to perfection




to achieve significant reductions in water waste (and accompanying
                                 98

-------
excess salt pickup).  Although enforcement varies widely among and
within states, presumably water rights administration personnel al-
ready would act to control extreme cases of water waste.  With an
evolutionary approach involving gradual increases in personnel,
training in new enforcement standards, and an accompanying public in-
formation program designed to enlist irrigator cooperation, it seems
possible that within a few years substantial savings in water use
could be achieved.
        Sanctions.  The use of sanctions or police power of the state
(including state authorized irrigation and conservancy districts) to
reduce excess water applications is rare except in extreme cases.
The normal variation of skill among farmers engaged in irrigated ag-
riculture and the uncertainties of weather make some excess water
applications inevitable.  Furthermore, the decentralized nature of
irrigated agriculture and the relatively small staff of state water
management personnel makes enforcement of existing laws against water
waste extremely difficult.
        However, sanctions are applied in some localities, e.g., the
Imperial Irrigation District of California which applies a pricing
penalty to the delivery of irrigation water that results in excessive
volumes of tailwater.  Since 97 percent of man-made salinity is
caused by irrigated agriculture, it appears that no sincere effort to
reduce salinity can possibly be effective unless the administrative
regulation of irrigation water by the states undergoes a significant
increase in diligence.   This increase will certainly arouse hostility
among many irrigators,  the intensity of the hostility being propor-
tional to the degree of enforcement.
                                99

-------
        The impact on salinity depends to a great degree on the use




made of the water which would be saved from excess application through




the implementation of Action #1.  Although conservation of water is




generally recognized in the West as a desirable result, it may not




result in a salinity decrease.  In fact, if the saved water is used




to bring new land into agricultural production, salinity may increase.




        Another factor directly affecting the impact of Action #1 on




salinity is the nature of the soil in various geographic regions.  If




the excess water application occurs in an area of Mancos shale, for




example, or other saline, easily leached soil, a reduction in water




application should cause a reduction in the area's salinity contribu-




tion.  However, reducing excess irrigation in other agricultural areas




which do not have saline soils  (or are in salt balance) will result




in little or no improvement in the salinity problem.
                                 100

-------
ARIZONA—Action #1




        Authority.  In Arizona the applicable water resources statute




authorizes the state land department, acting through a water district




superintendent, to:  "As far as practicable, divide, regulate and




control the use of waters in his district by closing headgates to




prevent the waste of water or its use in excess of the volume to which




the owner of the right is lawfully entitled" (ARS 45-106).  ARS 45-




101 states, "Beneficial use shall be the basis, measure, and limit to




the use of water."  Taken together, these statutes appear to give




authority to the water district superintendent to directly limit water




diversions in excess of beneficial use amounts; however, ARS 45-106.C




permits a person injured by such action to apply to superior court




for injunctive relief.




        ARS 45-109 states that a person who willfully wastes water to




the detriment of another is guilty of a misdemeanor, and authorizes




the water superintendent or his assistants to arrest violators and




file complaints.  ARS 13-1012 establishes sanctions for water waste.




        Current status.  The Salt River Project has implemented an ex-




tensive water management system which accomplishes the goal of this




action, at least in part.  It is important to note that salinity con-




trol is not the prime objective of these measures, although any




reduction in salinity is a welcomed benefit.




        Potential feasibility.  The widespread awareness of water




limitations in Arizona would probably give public support to some ad-




ministrative actions to control excess water use that could reasonably




be considered "waste."  However, as elsewhere in the West, a rapid
                                 101

-------
departure from past administrative practice would encounter resistance

from irrigators, and would require additional administrative person-

nel which would increase costs.  Nevertheless,  if the enforcement of the

action were limited at first to the most clear-cut cases of excessive

water use and implemented only gradually, the action appears generally

feasible.
                                                                Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable   Obstacle
        Legal                          X
        Political                           X
        Administrative	X	

        An attempt to implement enforcement extensively would encounter

major obstacles.
                                102

-------
CALIFORNIA—Action #1




        Authority.  The California Water Code (WC 100) states that




the general welfare requires that waste or unreasonable use of water




be prevented, and that the right to use water does not extend to




waste or unreasonable use.  WC 275 authorizes the state to prevent




unreasonable use or waste of water.  WC 1240 defines non-beneficial




uses, and gives the California Water Resources Control Board the power




to limit diversions by appropriative (not riparian) users to "reason-




able" uses; however, the Board has not implemented this power so




"reasonable" use is not clearly defined.  Additional, general, author-




ity to control water use to reduce waste can be found in WC 1257 which




authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to subject appro-




priations of water "to such terms and conditions as in its judgment




will best develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest, the




water sought to be appropriated."  WC 22078 gives to irrigation




districts the power to control water for the beneficial use of the




district or its inhabitants or the owners of rights to waters therein.




This power includes (WC 22280) the power to collect charges for de-




livery of water for irrigation in excess of a specified quantity per




unit of land.




        However, state-level administrative action to encourage




efficiency in water use may be inhibited by a California case holding




that an irrigator need not take "extraordinary precautions" to prevent
                                103

-------
waste if the irrigator is in conformance with the "customs of the

community."

        Current status.  Sanctions on excess water use are being en-

forced by the Imperial Irrigation District.  Voluntary controls on

excess water use are frequently implemented for other benefits than

strict conservation, such as labor savings or better production.  The

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has a trial project aimed at reduction of

salinity through scheduling of water delivery and application in the

Palo Verde Valley.  Further, the California Department of Water

Resources is planning to "... vigorously pursue a program of iden-

tification of water waste and work with other agencies toward elimi-

nation of such waste.  Legislation will be sought to provide added
                                                                   ,,2
legal and institutional means for accomplishing water conservation.

        Potential feasibility.  The major irrigation districts in the

Colorado River Basin of California already are taking some action to

reduce excess water use.  Since that region is considered close to a

salt balance, the benefit to salinity from further reduction of water

use is questionable.  A reduction in the amount of tailwater would in-
                                                   3
crease the concentration of salts in drainage water  but would not

necessarily reduce salt loading significantly.
         Joerger vs. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (207 Cal. 8, 273,
p. 1017 [1929].  See also George E. Radosevich and Gaylord V.
Skogerboe, Achieving Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control Through
Improved Legal Systems.  Fort Collins:  Resources Administration and
Development, Inc., April, 1977, p. VI-25 (draft).
        2
         Department of Water Resources, Water Conservation in
California, Sacramento, 1976, p. 54.

        3Ibid, p. 87.


                                104

-------
                                                        Major
Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
Legal                              X
Political                          X
Administrative	X	


Although potentially feasible for adoption, Action #1 is not

applicable in California because it would have little or no

effect on Colorado River salinity.
                         105

-------
COLORADO—Action #1

        Authority.  Colorado Statute CRS 37-92-502(2) states:

        Each division engineer shall order the total or partial
        discontinuance of any diversion in his division to the
        extent the water being diverted is not necessary for
        application to a beneficial use; and he shall also order
        the total or partial discontinuance of any diversion in
        his division to the extent the water being diverted is
        required by persons entitled to use water under water
        rights having senior priorities, but no such discontinuance
        shall be ordered unless the diversion is causing or
        will cause material injury to such water rights having
        senior priorities.

A broad interpretation of this portion of the statute could give the

State Engineer the authority to accomplish the described action.

        Enforcement of orders by the State Engineer under CRS 37-92-

502 can be achieved by injunction, with the violator paying court

costs and attorney's fees (CRS 37-92-503), or by a civil action for

damages.  CRS 37-92-504 allows a party, injured by violation of a

State Engineer's order, to collect triple damages plus court costs

and attorney's fees.

        Current status.  No such actions to limit unnecessary water

applications are being taken by the Colorado State Engineer's Office.

The position of this office is that there is no authority to enforce

sanctions against any overapplication of water except for clearly

gross waste, e.g., water flowing down a highway and roadside ditch,

and that a change in statute would be required for such action to be

taken.  Projects which involve the scheduled application of water and

different irrigation methods are taking place in Colorado's Grand

Valley on a cooperative basis.  However, in some parts of the Grand
                                106

-------
Valley there is some evidence of excess water use beyond that needed

for agricultural purposes.

         Potential  feasibility.   It is  generally accepted that  some

 excess applications of irrigation water occur in Colorado.  However,

 administrative  action to  order such diversions stopped would be  a dis-

 tinct departure from past and present  practice.  The administering

 agency questions its legal ability to  do so without new statutory

 direction.  Even if legality were assured, there would be obvious

 problems of administration (i.e., additional costs for personnel of

 division engineers' staffs) and  of political resistance by irrigators.

 Both of  these problems would be  reduced if enforcement were imple-

 mented gradually,  beginning with the most clear-cut cases of exces-

 sive water use.  With this qualification, the action appears

 generally feasible whereas extensive enforcement would be infeasible.

                                                                 Major
         Potential  Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
         Legal                              X
         Political                           X
         Administrative                              X
                               107

-------
NEVADA—Action #1




        Authority.  Nevada statutes grant the State Engineer the




power to limit appropriation of water to that whLch is "reasonahly




required" for beneficial use.  Regulations causing this may also he




issued (NRS 533.060-.070).  Irrigation Districts are granted authority




to establish rules and regulations for distribution and use of water




(NRS 539.233).




        Current status.  Agricultural uses are not a prime contributor




to salinity.  Nevada uses only a small amount of irrigation water




from tributaries and none from the Colorado River Mainstem.  In




fact, because of the lack of water in Nevada, it appears that




the "economics of need" do or will force efficient use and maximum




reuse of all available water.




        Potential feasibility.  Action naturally underway from market




forces.  No further intervention believed appropriate or necessary.
                                 108

-------
 NEW MEXICO—Action #1

         Authority.   The New Mexico State Engineer is  required  to

 permit the  amount  of water diverted to be based on beneficial  use  and

 in accordance  with good agricultural practice  and to  result  in the

 most  effective use of  water to prevent waste  (NMSA 75-7-4  and  75-5-17).*

 The practical  effectiveness of this statute in controlling water waste

 is yet to be clearly established.

         Current status.  Actions  taken at present are those  necessary

 to prevent  the most obvious water waste.

         Potential  feasibility. It is doubtful that the  statute cited

 above can be construed to change  prevailing agricultural practice  in

 an area—but it may be used to cause conformance to efficient  water

 usage practices for those who fall below the norm.  If applied in  this

 limited way, the action appears generally feasible.  Enhanced  enforce-

 ment  will require  additional expenditures for  personnel  of the State

 Engineer's  Office,  but these costs would be limited if enforcement

 were  gradually increased and applied to the exceptional  cases  of

 excess water use.
                                                                Major
         Potential  Feasibility,	Feasible     Questionable     Obstacle
         LegalX
         Political                              X
         Administrative                           X
        *NMSA 75-12-6, -8, and -9 prohibit the waste of artesian waters;
however, these sections have limited applicability to the San Juan Basin
of New Mexico.
                                109

-------
UTAH—Action #1

        Authority.  UCA 73-5-3 authorizes the State Engineer to divide

irrigation water "among the several appropriators entitled thereto in

accordance with the right of each respectively, and shall regulate and

control . . .  the use of such water by such closing or partial closing

of the headgates ... or other means of diversion as will prevent

the waste of water or its use in excess of the quantity to which any

appropriator is lawfully entitled."  The appropriation of water in

Utah "must be for some useful and beneficial purpose" (UGA 73-3-1).

Excess flow and wastewater are discussed in Smithfield West Bench

Irr. Co. vs. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 105 U. 468, 142 P.  2d 866;

appeal 113. U. 356, 195 P. 2d 249.

        Current status.  Administrative action or sanctions are not

currently taken to control excess water use, if such is within the

defined water right.

        Potential feasiblity.  Administrative action to control diver-

sions in excess of "beneficial use" would be a distinct departure from

past and present practice and, if extensively implemented, would en-

counter extremely difficult barriers of political resistance and

administrative costs.  However, if enforcement were implemented

gradually, beginning with the most clear-cut cases of excessive water

use, the action appears marginally feasible.
                                                               Major
        Potential Feasiblity :	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                            X
        Political                              X
        Administrative                            X
                                110

-------
WYOMING—Action #1

        Authority.  In Wyoming, WS 41-2 establishes that "Beneficial

use shall be the basis, the measure and limit of the right to use

water at all times, not exceeding the statutory limit  ..."  That

limit is defined in WS 41-181 as one cubic foot per second for each

70 acres of landj the limit applies to all rights adjudicated under

State laws but not under territorial decrees.  Each appropriator is

entitled to divert a quantity of water reasonably necessary for his

acreage, within the limits of his decree.

        WS 41-64 authorizes water commissioners to shut headgates and

otherwise to regulate the distribution of water among  the various

users "where rights have been adjudicated, in accordance with existing

decrees."  Moreover, administrative officers have the  authority to

further limit water use to prevent waste.-*


        Water  conservancy  districts, however,  are  given  some  dis-

 cretionary power  in allocating  water under district control.  WS 41-

 91(f) authorizes  district  boards  to allot water to lands within the

 district, "which  allotment  of water shall not  exceed the maximum

 amount  of water that  the board  determines could be beneficially used

 on  such lands."   There  is  no provision  in WS 41-91 to  assess  higher

 rates for excess  water  use; rates must  be "equitable"  although they

 may differ on  the basis of  land classification.
        4Quinn vs. John Whitaker Ranch  Co.,  54 Wyo.  367,  92  P-  (2nd)
 568.

         Parshall vs. Cowper, 22 Wyo. 385, 143 P.  302.
                               Ill

-------
        Current status.  There is no current implementation of Action




#1 in Wyoming.




        Potential feasibility.   In view of the limited authority in




the law, Action #1 is not considered feasible in Wyoming.
                              112

-------
ACTION
1. Regulate ir-
use so that the
water rights
holder reduces
excess use and
implements waste
control measures.
This may be done
by:
(a) Direct action
by the agency ad-
ministering water
rights , to limit
or control amounts
of water diverted
















if waste occurs; j
ARIZONA
ARS 45-101 states
that Benef ic ial
use shall be the
basis, measure and
limit to the use
of water." ARS
45-106 authorizes
the state land
department 's wa-
ter district su-
perintendent to
close headgates to
prevent waste of
water or excess
use of lawful en-
titlement . Sec-
tion C of 45-106
or [permits a person
(b) Imposing sancj injured by a waste
tions by thi.- State H
Engineer, irriga- «
tion district or
other appropriate
agency, on water
users using ex-
cessive amounts
of water.
i— i
to


























o
S























S
H
tn

w

o


control action to
apply to superior
court for injunc-
tive relief. ARS
45-109 states that
a person who will-
fully wastes water
to the detriment
of another is
guilty of a mis-
demeanor and
authorizes water
superintendent to
make arrests and
file complaints.
ARS 13-1012 esta-
blishes sanctions
for water waste.

Specific




The Salt River
Proj ect has imple-
mented an exten-
sive water manage-
ment system which
partially accom-
plishes the goal
of this action.




CALIFORNIA
WC 100 states that
the right to use
water does not ex-
tend to waste or
unreasonable use ,
and WC 275 autho-
rizes the state to
prevent water
waste. WC 1240
gives the Water Re-
sources Control
Board the power to
limit diversions by
appropriative users
COLORADO
CRS 37-92-502(2)
authorizes the
State Engineer ' s
division engineer
to order a total
or partial halt
to diversions of
water not neces-
sary for bene-
ficial use. CRS
37-92-503 gives
the State Engi-
neer inj unctive
powers, or the
in excess of rea- j right to the in-
sonable use. WC Ijured party to
22078 gives irriga-
tion districts the
power to control wa-
ter for beneficial
use and WC 22280
take civil action
for damages . CRS
37-92-504 allows
an injured party
to collect triple
gives the power to damages plus
collect charges for
delivery of irriga-
tion water in ex-
court costs and
attorney1 s fees .

cess of a specified] Specific
quantity.

Specific














The Imperial Ir-
rigation District
is enforcing sanc-
tions on excess
water use. The
USER is operating
a trial irrigation
management service
in the Palo Verde
Valley. The
project is aimed
at reducing
(continued)










NEVADA
NRS 533.060-070
gives the State
Engineer power
to limit water ap-
propr iat ions to
that reasonably
required for bene-
NEW MEXICO UTAH
NMSA 75-5-17 anrl
75— 7— 4 reci u ires
t^e State Engineer
to allow diversion
based on beneficial
use and in accor-
dance with good
ficial use. NRS agricultural nrac-
539.233 gives Ir- Itice in order to
rigacion Districts obtain the most ef-
authority to set
rules and regu-
lations for dis-
tribution and use
of water.

Specific



















'






I


No such actions Because of lack of
are being taken water in Nevada
by the State "economics of
Engineer's Of f ice,, need" do or will
fective use of
water and to pre-
vent waste.
Sped fi c















UCA 73-3-1
states that water
must be appropri-
ated for some use-
ful and beneficial
purpose. UCA 73-
5-3 authorizes the
State Engineer to
divide the water
according to the
appropriator ' s
right and to regu-
late the use by
full or partial
closing of head-
gates or other
means to prevent
waste or excess
WYOMING
WS 41-2 establishes
beneficial use as the
basis , measure and
limit of the right
to use water not
exceeding the
statutory limit
of (defined at
41-181) one cubic
foot per second for
each 70 acres of
land under State
laws, but not under
territorial dacree .




use of water ap- WS 41-64 allows
propriated .

Specific


































Actions being iNo actions are
taken are those (being taken to
necessary to control excess
prevent the most
which feels there force efficient obvious waste.
water use.

is no authority use of all avail-
for enforcing able water. !
sanctions except
for clearly gross



waste. The Grand i
Valley has some
cooperative
water commissioners
to shut headgates
and otherwise
regulate distribu-
tion of water in
accordance with
existing decrees .
Administrative officers
can fur the r 1 imi t us e
to nrevent waste.
WS 41-91 (f) allows
water conservancy
district boards to
allot water with-
in the district
not exceeding board
determined beneficial
use. Rates must be
"equitable, ' with
no provision for high-
er rates for excess
use.

Specif ic/Pror.ibi. ted
There is no imple-
mentation of this
action in Wyoming.









(continued)

-------

ACTION
1. Regulate ir-
rigation water
use so that the
water rights
holder reduces
excess use and
implements waste
control measures.
This may be done
by:
(a) Direct action
by the agency ad-
ministering water
rights, to limit or
control amounts of
water diverted if
waste occurs ; or








1Z1
s
H
C/3
H
§
Pi
o




ARIZONA














Public support as
a result of wide-
[spread awareness
(b) Imposing sane- j ]of water limita-
tions by the State
tion district or
other appropriate
agency, on water
users using ex-
cessive amounts
of water.
i— -
-P-













g
j
pq
C/3
a
P&
3
i— i
H
§
S
OH

tions is probable
Irrigators would
resist a rapid
departure from
current practice ;
and additional
administrative
personnel would
increase costs .
Gradual enforce-
ment aimed at
the most obvious
waste is the
most feasible
approach.



CALIFORNIA
salinity through
better timing of
water delivery
and application.
The Department of
Water resources
is planning a
program of iden-
tification and
elimination of
water waste, and
will seek sup-
portive legis-
lation.
The major irriga-
tion districts are
taking action to
reduce excess wa-
ter use. The
sidered close to
salt balance so
that salinity
benefits are
minimal .











COLORADO
irrigation manage-
ment pro j ec ts
underway , but
there is some evi-
dence of wa t e r use
merely to secure
an existing rieht
beyond that needed
for agricultural
purposes .




The administering
agency questions
its legal autho-
rity to implement
this action. Such
a departure from
past and present
practice . Even
with assured
legality, addi-
tional personnel
costs and irriga-
tor resistance
reduce feasibili-
ty. Gradual
action against
the most obvious
waste would im-
prove the chances
for implement a-
tion.

NEVADA














This action is
naturally under-
way due to market
forces , No fur-
ther intervention

















NEW MEXICO














Gradual enforce-
ment against the
most obvious
waste is feasible
if used to cause
the accepted ef-
ficient water
use practices,













i
UTAH | WYOMING
	 1 "
j
1
I
|
1


(
1
1
1
(
i
j
j
Implementation of | In view of the
this action j limited legal
would be a dis- ; authority, this
tinct departure faction is not
from past and | considered
ores ent adminis— 'feasible.
trative practice , ',
and would en- \
counter political '
assistance as j
well as increased ;
personnel costs . \
Gradual action [
against the
most obvious waste \
appears marginally \
feasible. ;
!





-------
            r/uviK.1,': f,V f t \JfM\i I :i:  f;;!MV<>  -Vtf \vw-'r\\ ,v,'••) p;,»n;i):h!
            programs  (PL 92-500;,  est.abJish saJim'fi; as a
            priority  item  to  £>e dealt with and develop a s<>riVs
            of local  and/or state corrective actions.

        This proposed action  is essentially one whereby other  pro-

posed actions may be  coordinated with the 208 planning process.   For

this reason, a discussion of  Action #2, including background and

potential feasibility, will be included after the other recommended

actions have been described and discussed.  Chapter  VI of  this

report discusses Action  #2 for all of the Colorado River Basin states

as a unit.
                                  115

-------
     3.   Because of the need for an integrated approach to
         salinity control programs, utilize an existing state
         agency (or establish such an agency)  to coordinate
         and promote salinity control actions  by different
         state institutions.

         Background  of  the action.   This action would  require

 executive action by the  governor  to  establish salinity  control  as  a

 priority goal  to be pursued  in a  coordinated manner by  all appropriate

 state agencies.  The action  is based upon  the belief  that if  salinity

 control  is  to  be achieved in  the  Colorado  River Basin states, it must

 be given a high priority and  central coordination by  state governments.

        The key to  this  approach  appears to rest with the members  of

 the Forum, whose specialized knowledge of  salinity and  influence with

 the governors  (who normally appoint them*) might generate a new, coordinated staj

 level effort to control  salinity.  At the  initiative of the Forum

 members in a state,  the  following steps might take place:

         1.   The governor determines that  control of salinity
             in the Colorado River Basin is a  priority of his
             administration.

         2.   The governor designates an agency or person re-
             sponsible for coordinating state  efforts to
             achieve improvement in salinity control.   This
             might take the  form of

             • creation of an interdepartmental task force
             • assigning new duties to an  existing agency
             • creating a staff position to the governor (or
               assigning new duties to an  existing staff person)•

         3.   The responsible party, agency or  group catalogs
             state agencies  and past decisions which have an
             impact on salinity.
        *In Nevada, Forum representatives are designated by the State
Environmental Commission.
                                116

-------
        4.   The responsible party, agency or group develops
            a series of policies, administrative actions,
            and/or coordinating procedures to assure that the
            salinity control priority is achieved.  This could
            include recommending state statutes which could
            be passed to assist in salinity control.

        Once established, the agency might function as a salinity

ombudsman,  with various roles of mediation of interagency disputes

which have impact on salinity, attendance at cabinet meetings,  requiring

departmental reports on progress toward salinity control, and

encouraging state legislation which assists in reducing the state's

salinity contribution.
                               117

-------
ARIZONA— Action //3

        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The executive

powers and administrative duties of the Arizona governor give him

sufficient authority to carry out this action.  Should this action

be established outside the existing executive branch staff, any

additional funding would be subject to legislative appropriation.

        Current status.  No central coordinating policy or work

group on salinity control now exists in Arizona.

        Potential feasibility.  Almost all of the State of Arizona

lies within the Colorado River Basin.  Further, there are a number

of agencies and projects which have a direct or indirect impact on

salinity.  These agencies and projects include but are not limited to

the following:

        • Well ton-Mohawk Project

        • Central Arizona Project

        • Numerous  208 Areawide Water Quality Planning Projects
          of  the state 208 coordinator

        • Attorney  General's Office

        • Bureau of Water Quality Control

              ona) Watpr Commission
 This partial  listing of  involved  parties  illustrates  the logic and

 feasibility of establishing a  salinity ombudsman in Arizona.

                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility: _ Feasible _ Questionable _ Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                     X
        Administrative                X
                               118

-------
CALIFORNIA—Action //3




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The executive and




administrative powers of the California governor give him sufficient




authority to carry out Action #3.  If salinity coordination responsi-




bility were to be established outside the existing executive branch




staff, any additional funding would be subject to legislative appro-




priation.




        Current status.  No central coordinating policy or work group




exclusive to salinity control now exists in California.  However, the




State Water Resources Control Board does provide coordinated leadership




to  Statewide water quality programs.  The Colorado River Board of




California plays  a major role in  coordinating  and stimulating salinity




control  actions in the  Colorado River system.




        Potential feasibility.  This approach has limited potential




in  California, because  the Colorado River is highly saline when it




reaches California.  Thus salinity control already has a high priority




within the state.  Almost all state and local officials contacted were




aware of the salinity problem and solutions being implemented by




various units of  government.  Further, California is the only state in




the Colorado River Basin that combines water quality and water quantity




functions within  the same agency, the State Water Resources Control Board.




        For these reasons, designation of a salinity ombudsman for




California's portion of the Colorado River Basin would add little if




any strength to the existing salinity control effort.  The action is




therefore not recommended for California.
                                  119

-------
 COLORADO—Action #3

         Agency responsible and legal authority.   The executive

 and administrative powers  of the Colorado governor give him sufficient

 authority to  carry out Action #3.   If salinity coordination responsi-

 bility were to be established outside the existing executive branch

 staff,  any additional funding would be subject to legislative appro-

 priation.

         Current status. No central coordinating  policy or work group

 on salinity control  now exists in Colorado,  although many  of the admin-

 istrative functions  that impact on salinity  are assigned to the Depart-

 ment of Natural Resources.  Members of the governor's staff have ex-

 pressed concern over Colorado's contribution to the salinity of the

 Colorado River.   Both the  Colorado Water  Conservation Board and the

 Colorado Water Quality Control Commission are involved in  salinity

 control actions.

         Potential feasibility.   There is  no  indication that making

 salinity control  a priority of Colorado's governor  will  achieve a

 reduction  in  Colorado's contribution to the  salinity  loading of the

 Colorado River.   Yet,  even though  a direct benefit  cannot  be established,

 the  action is  not negated.   Compared to other possible salinity actions,

 creation of a  coordinative mechanism is broadly feasible.
                                                                  Major
         Potential  Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
         Legal                          X
         Political                      X
         Adminis tra tive	X	

         Special task  forces, groups,  and  even an  ombudsman have been

created  to solve various problems  facing  Colorado.  In Colorado's case,

where the state is a contributor to  salinity  but bears few  of  the con-

sequences of its  contributions, this action could result in  long-term

improvements.

                                120

-------
NEVADA—Action #3




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The executive and




administrative powers of the Nevada governor give him sufficient




authority to carry out Action #3.  If salinity coordination responsi-




bility were to be established outside the existing executive branch




staff, any additional funding would be subject to legislative appro-




priation.




        Current status.  A state policy on salinity control does not




exist in Nevada.  However, the areawide 208 plan for the Colorado River




Basin focuses on salinity control as its prime objective.




        Potential feasibility.  The potential of this action in Nevada




is difficult to assess.  The governor has not designated a salinity




coordinating group nor a policy for Nevada's portion of the Colorado




River Basin.  However, the areawide 208 water quality study, because




of its prime focus on salinity control, serves much the same purpose




of coordination.  Therefore, this action is not recommended for Nevada




at this time.  When the 208 process is completed, this approach should




be reevaluated.
                                121

-------
NEW MKX ICO—Ac Lion //3




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The executive and




administrative powers of the New Mexico governor give him sufficient




authority to carry out Action #3.  If salinity coordination responsi-




bility were to be established outside the existing executive branch




staff, any additional funding would be subject to legislative appro-




priation.




        Current status.  No central coordinating policy or work group




exclusively focused on salinity control now exists in New Mexico.




However,  the Water Quality Control Commission has responsibility for




both  water pollution  control and Section 208 planning programs.



        Potential feasibility.   The New Mexico Water Quality Control




Commission (WQCC) has the most potential for serving as a salinity




ombudsman.  The Commission consists of the following state agencies:




        • State Engineer/Interstate Stream Commission




        • Environmental Improvement Agency




        • Oil Conservation Commission




        • Department  of Agriculture




        • Natural Resource Conservation Commission




        • Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources




        • Parks and Recreation Commission




        • Game and Fish Department




        In addition to wide representation of various state agencies




on the Water Quality  Control Commission, the Commission is an ongoing




operation focused on water quality.  For these reasons, an executive




order by governor, assigning priority to salinity control and designating




the WQCC as the coordinating agency, has considerable potential in
                                122

-------
assuring development of a state policy to control salinity in the

Colorado River Basin.

        Because of the existing framework for this action, the

feasibility of taking  it is rated relatively high.
                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                     X
        Administrative                X
                               123

-------
ITVH- -.Vt um  - >

         V;..   \                         ,

 .u'.'.'.u 11 i .•: t \ :\ t i v<~ pi*W(M .-. i>t  (hi- I't.th ^..'vniuM fMvr him -.u((i. i rut

 authority to carry out Action #3.  If salinity control responsibility

 were to  be established outside the existing executive branch staff,

 any additional funding would be subject to legislative appropriation.

         Current status.   Salinity control planning in Utah is carried

 out by Utah's representation on the Forum, by the Division of Health

 and Division of Water Resources that jointly coordinate state salinity

 policy,  and  by the Water Pollution Committee that exercises policy

 functions  on salinity and other forms of pollution.

         Potential feasibility.  There is no indication that making

 salinity control a priority of Utah's governor will achieve a reduction

 in Utah's  contribution to the salinity loading of the Colorado Tliver.

 Yet, even though a direct benefit cannot be established,  this action

 is not infeasible.  In Utah's case, this action could result in long-

 term improvements.  Further, as shown below, it should be a relatively

 easy action to implement.
                                                                   Major
         Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
         LegalX
         Political                       X
         Administrative          	X	
                                 124

-------
WYOMING—Action #3




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The executive and




administrative powers of the Wyoming governor give him sufficient




authority to carry out Action #3.  If salinity coordination responsi-




bility were to be established outside the existing executive branch




staff, any additional funding would be subject to legislative appro-




priation.




        Current status.  No central coordinating policy of work group




on salinity control now exists in Wyoming.




        Potential feasibility.  There is no indication that making




salinity control a priority of Wyoming's governor will achieve a




reduction in Wyoming's contribution to the salinity loading of the




Colorado River.  Yet, because a direct benefit cannot be established




does not prove this action ineffective.




        The ideal agency to undertake this action in Wyoming is the




Governor's Interdepartmental Water Conference, chaired by the State




Engineer.   The members of the Interdepartmental Water Conference are:




        • State Planning Coordinator  (Governor's Office)




        • State Engineer




        • Attorney General's Office




        • State Department of Agriculture




        • Department of Environmental Quality




        • Department of Economic Planning and Development





        • Industrial Siting Administration




        • Geological Survey of Wyoming




        • Game and Fish Department




        • Wyoming Recreation  Commission
                              125

-------
       • Wyoming Highway Department

       • State Land Use Commission (Land Use Administration)

       • University of Wyoming

       The existence of the Governor's Interdepartmental Water

Conference helps make this action feasible for implementation.

                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                          X
        Political                      X
        Administrative                 X
                                126

-------
ACTION
3. Because of the
need for an inte-
grated approach to
salinity control
programs, utilize
an existing state
agency (or estab-
lish such an
agency) to coordi-
nate and promote
salinity control
actions by dif-
ferent state
institutions.










i— '
to
-J























H
h- 1
Pi
O
ffi
H
<







en
3
S
in
z,
y
3i
U








>>
[^
j
-J
C/}
£
S]
D
ARIZONA
Authority for
this action is
implicit in the
executive and ad-
ministrative
powers of the
governor .







No specific state
office, work
group, or policy
related to
salinity control
exists .






Almost all of
Arizona is in
Colorado River
Basin with many
agencies affect-
ing salinity
either directly
or indirectly.
A state ombuds-
man or coordi-
nator for sa-
linity control
should prove of
value.



CALIFORNIA
Authority for
this action is
implicit In the
executive and ad-
ministrative
powers of the
governor.







No specific state
office, work
group, or policy
related to
salinity control
exists.






Action has limited
potential in
California. State
and various offi-
cials are both
concerned and seem
coordinated on
salinity matters.









COLORADO
Authority for
this action is
implicit in the
executive and ad-
ministrative
Dowers of the
governor.







$0 specific state
office, work
group , or policy
related to
salinity control
exists .






This action has
good potential for
positive long-term
impact in Colorado,
As there is no
concentrated,
long-term effort
on salinity con-
trol, a state
policy should
prove helpful at
the very least.





NEVADA
Authority for
this action is
implicit in the
executive and ad-
ministrative
powers of the
governor .







No specific state
office , work
group , or policy
related to
salinity control
exists .






Action has low
potential present-
ly because of
focus of areawide
208 process on
Nevada1 s contribu-
tion of salinity
to the Colorado
River.




NEW MEXICO
Authority for
this action is
implicit in the
executive and ad-
ministrative
powers of the
governor -







No specific state
office, work
group , or policy
related to
salinity control
exists .






New Mexico's Water
Quality Control
Commission has
broad membership
of state agencies.
The Commission is
the logical agency
for an executive
order to develop a
state policy on
salinity in the
Colorado River.

i
]




UTAH
Authority for
this action is
implicit in the
executive and ad-
ministrative
powers of the
governor .







No specific state
office related to
salinity control
exists, but policy
functions are
shared among forum
representatives ,
Div. of Health,
Div. of Water Re-
sources, and Water
Pollution Commit-
tee.
This action has
good potential for
positive long-term
impact in Utah.
Coordination of
state officials
and direction
toward an over-
all state policy
on salinity should,
at tbe least , be
Beneficial .


WYOMING
Authority for
this action is
implicit in the
executive and ad-
ministrative
powers of the
governor .







No specific state
office , work
group , or policy
related to
salinity control
exists .






This action has
good potential
for Wyoming.
The logical agency
to undertake this
action is the
Governor ' s Inter-
departmental Water
Conference.






!



-------
    4.  Require minimum standards for water well construction,
        and require plugging of abandoned water wells and
        exploratory drill holes to avoid contamination of
        groundwater strata.

        Background of the action.  This action has not been substan-

tially investigated in terms of salinity control.  However, it is

known that saltwater or brine may be encountered during the drilling

of a water well or an exploratory drill hole (e.g., for mineral

exploration or seismic investigation), making rapid plugging desirable.

Without proper well construction, there exists a potential for mixing

of waters between strata with subsequent contamination if flow occurs

from saltwater to fresh water strata.  Ultimately, the saline contamination

can spread to streams flowing into the Colorado River.  While the

severity of salinity pollution from water wells and exploratory drill

holes has not been estimated, the adoption of standards and regulations

for construction and plugging would reduce a threat of added potential

aquifer and surface water pollution.
                               128

-------
ARIZONA—Action #4





        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The State Land




Department, Water Rights Division, has the responsibility over the




drilling of water wells in critical groundwater areas and for




preventing the waste of groundwater.  Permits for drilling are




required only in the designated critical areas (ARS 45-308) although




informational filings, concerning the character and construction of




wells, are required for all new wells (ARS 45-317).




        The statutory prohibition against waste of groundwater




(ARS 45-319.A) doesn't appear to differentiate between withdrawals




from ordinary and from critical groundwater areas.  In order to




prevent such waste, the State Land Department shall:  "(1) Require




all flowing wells to be capped or equipped with valves so that the




flow of water can be completely stopped when not in use," and




"(2) Require both flowing and nonflowing wells to be so constructed




and maintained as to prevent waste  of groundwater through leaky




casing, lack of casings, pipes, fittings, valves or pumps, either




above or below the surface."  This  section seems to provide adequate




aquifer protection for operating wells.  The Oil and Gas  Conservation




Commission provides the same protection from drill holes  in requiring




that water-bearing formations be  sealed off before a hole can be




abandoned.



        Current status.  Historically, Arizona concern with ground-




water has been directed towards its availability and ownership.  In




much of the state, groundwater withdrawals are being made at twice
                                   129

-------
the rate of replenishment.  Additionally, ownership is appurtenant to


the land under which the water percolates.  Because the water is


owned with the land this further complicates the preservation of


groundwater basins in terms of both quantity and quality since so


much of the water is private property.

        The 1948 Arizona Groundwater Code did enable the Land Department


to designate critical groundwater areas.  Such areas can be designated


in terms of quality or quantity or both.  This means that permits must


be obtained for the drilling of new domestic wells-and that no new


irrigation wells may be drilled.  The critical designation does not


prohibit the development of wells for purposes other than irrigation.


        Despite the constraints against much action in the area of


groundwater wells, the critical designation has aiJed the salinity


problem in the Joseph City area.  Saline water on the north is being


held back by good water, now protected from over-withdrawal.


        The State Land Department has instituted an Automatic Ground-


water Data System to make available up-to-date technical information


on groundwater wells.  These data are being used to develop ground-


water resource management programs, and will be used to compute in-


creases or drops in the groundwater table.  Other computing capabilities


are being studied.
                                                       t

        Even though the Water Rights Division of the State Land


Department has some of the tools for controlling water well contamina-


tion of the groundwater strata, the quality of groundwater varies


so much throughout the state (from about 230 mg/1 to over 100,000
                                  130

-------
mg/1 IDS) that  the Department  feels  new  legislation  is  needed  to

give the state  better control  over the water.

        Potential feasibility.   Salinity,  along  with sedimenta-

tion,  is considered  the major  water  quality problem  in

Arizona.  In order to fully implement water well control, new  legis-

lation is needed.  However, better enforcement of the anti-waste

statute could be provided  administratively through an increase in  Water

Rights Division manpower.  Such  costs would be balanced by full

enforcement of  the existing law, and by  some additional control over

the identified  salinity problem.

        The standards for  proper water well construction have  been

defined in ARS  45-317, the terms for receiving a permit for drilling

a groundwater well in a critical area.   The anti-waste  section further

prescribes controls  over flowing wells.  Ten critical groundwater

areas were designated by 1975, at least  one in terms  of salinity

control.   Further designation of critical areas will enlarge control

over groundwater used for  irrigation purposes, without legislation

and without overwhelming costs.

        The Water Rights Division has suggested that clean drinking

water requirements might be used to exercise additional control over

groundwater wells.  The general authority given to the Department of

Health Services in ARS 36-601.A.9,  declaring the pollution or

contamination of domestic waters to be dangerous to public health,
        1Arizona, State Land Department, Annual Report, 1974-1975,
Phoenix, 1975, p. 24.
                                  131

-------
could be joined with the Water Quality Control Council's ability to

set water quality standards (ARS 36-1857) to achieve control over

water wells used by municipalities.   While no specific authority is

given in this area, the general needs to protect public health and

water quality levels might be called upon.

        Thus, feasibility would appear to be questionable, at least

to some extent, in all areas:
                                                              Major
        Potential Feasibility:  Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                     X
        Political                                 X
        Administrative	X	

          In general, it appears that control over irrigation wells and

  drill holes can be intensified and expanded.  There also seems to be a

  possibility,  dictated by water availability, for the expansion of control

  over groundwater wells used by municipalities.  To date, however, the only

  control over  industrial wells is  the actual quality of the water pumped

  as it relates to the particular industrial process.  Any control

  is limited by the available statutory authority and by funded manpower.

  Water rights,  availability,  and reserves are serious political problems

  in Arizona, and control over water quality is additionally limited by

  the sensitive water policy climate.
                                  132

-------
CALIFORNIA—Action #4

        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The California Water

Code prescribes a multi-step responsibility for control of water wells,

or any well which affects water quality either through direct surface

flow or through infiltration of groundwater strata.  The State

Department of Water Resources, pursuant to WC 231, recommends minimum

standards for well construction and for the proper sealing of abandoned

wells to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (WC 13800).  These

recommendations, after regional consideration (WC 13801), shall be

reported to the affected cities and counties for consideration and

adoption (WC 13802, 13803).  If the city or county fails to act

within 120 days, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards may adopt

and guarantee enforcement of the standards (WC 13805).

        Current status.  In 1968 California was constructing or

rehabilitating approximately 10,000 water wells a year, with a
                                      2
fair number being abandoned each year.   It is reasonable to assume that

at least the same rate of construction/abandonment prevails today.

Because of the adoption of water well standards and the concurrent

enforcement mechanisms, the major groundwater problems in the state

are those of depletion, and in the Colorado River Basin specifically,

of recharge quality.   Additionally, much of the CRB groundwater is

of poor natural quality.
        2
         California, Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 74:
Water Well Standards:  State of California, Sacramento:  State of
California, 1968, p. 1.
        3
         California, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality
Control Plan Report;  East Colorado River Basin  [7B], Sacramento:
State of California, 1975, p. 11-14-19.

                                  133

-------
        Potential feasibility.  The state and interested parties




have recognized that water wells can contribute  to  groundwater




degradation.  A control program has been implemented  in  California




which, with full implementation, will protect groundwater and  ground-




water strata from salinity contamination resulting  from  wells.   How-




ever, this action has little or no potential for salinity control within




the Colorado River Basin portion of California, for two  reasons.  First,




the groundwater is at least as saline as the Colorado River and  is thus




not subject to degradation by mixing with deep percolating irrigation




water.  Secondly,  as none of the tributary groundwater basins are artesian




systems, improperly constructed wells would not result in outflow of




highly saline waters to the Colorado River.
                                  134

-------
 COLORADO—Action #4





        Agency responsible and  legal  authority.   In  Colorado  responsi-




 bility  for water wells is divided.  For  most of  the  state,  the  State




 Engineer has  authority to issue permits  for construction of wells




 (CRS 37-90-137), to prevent  the waste of well water,  and to abate  or




 prohibit the  destruction of  other  ground or surface  water by  a




 water well  (CRS  37-90-138).  The State Engineer  also has the  power




 to ensure the proper construction,  repair,  and abandonment  of such




 wells  (CRS  37-91-101 to 112).   However,  the state has designated




 a number of groundwater basins.  The  responsibility  for  water wells




 in the  designated areas rests with the Ground Water  Commission




 (CRS 37-90-106).  In conjunction with the  State  Engineer the  Commission




 controls the  construction of water wells in those areas  (CRS  37-90-110).




        The state has  shown  special concern in the area of




 disposal wells.  The Water Quality Control  Commission has adopted




 "Rules  and Regulations for Subsurface Disposal Systems," but  the




 enforcement authority is not clearly  designated.




        The Oil and Gas Conservation  Commission,  in  "Rules  and  Regulations,"




 No. 331, requires that any exploratory hole be plugged  in a manner pie-




 venting the migration of substances from one stratum to another.




        Current status.   Groundwater  is  an  important  source of water




 supplies throughout Colorado.   In the  Colorado River  Basin  it is an




important  sotirce of agricultural (on-fann)   domestic water,  although




inadequate  to meet large-scale requirements.  Most of the area's




groundwater  has a generally higher concentration of dissolved solids
                                     135

-------
than the available surface water.4  Throughout the state shallow

aquifers have become polluted as usage increases.

        To protect groundwater supplies the Water Quality Control

Commission is attempting to institute a groundwater monitoring program.

The program would include an inventory of existing wells, potential

sources of pollution and an evaluation of existing quality.  Thus

far insufficient funds are available for a quality protection program.5

        Potential feasibility.  For the time being the major

activity of the state will be in the controls over construction of

wells in designated areas, over wells for subsurface disposal, and over

drill holes.  Until more technical information on quality problems becomes

available, the state feels it is taking appropriate action.  The State

Engineer would probably benefit from increased manpower, and from a policy

or statutory direction to plug all contaminating water wells.

        Thus, the major problems in Colorado fall in the areas of

personnel and a possible need for more authority.

                                                                Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                              X
        Political                    X
        Administrative                             X
        ^U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water
for Tomorrow;  Colorado State Water Plan. Phase I, February 1974.
pp. 3.16, 3.17.

        5 Colorado, Water Quality Control Division, FY 1975:  Report
to the Water Quality Control Commission, Denver, 1975.
                                 136

-------
NEVADA—Action #4




        Agency responsible  and  legal  authority.   Since 1913 Nevada




 has vested  groundwater  responsibility in the Office of the State




 Engineer.   This  includes  full authority over water wells,  from appro-




 priation  (NRS  533.325 to  533.435)  to  the repairing or sealing of




 defective wells  (NRS 534.060).   All water wells  must be drilled by




 licensed drillers who keep  logs of the geologic  formation  the well




 penetrates  (NRS  534.170).  In addition there is  a legislative intent




 that  wells  be  constructed and maintained in a manner to prevent waste




 or pollution of  underground water  (NRS 534.020).




         Current  status.  As is  common throughout the Colorado River




 Basin states,  groundwater is  a  valuable source of water supplies  to




 residents of Nevada.   Saline  groundwater is a particular problem  in the




 Las Vegas Wash;  and  while not attributable to wells,  illustrates  the




 severe problems  which can be  caused by contaminated groundwater if seepage




 pollutes surface water  or return flows.




         Potential I'uasib 1.1.1 ty.   The State  of Nevada is  particularly




 aware of its groundwater resources and has vested  extensive




 authority in the State Engineer.  However, there is little specificity




 in the rules,  regulations and statutes regarding abandoned wells, and





 they  appear  to be silent  on the subject of exploratory wells  and  drill




 holes.  The  State Engineer  would probably benefit from increased  manpower




 and improved legislative  policy direction,  but the  costs for  such improve-




 ments  have not been  estimated.
                                   137

-------
                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility;	Feasible	Questionable     Obstacle^
        Legal                                         X
        Political                     X
        Administrative	  X	__^

Because of the apparent statutory silence in two important areas,  this

action is of dubious feasibility in Nevada.
                               138

-------
NEW MEXICO—Action #4




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The New Mexico State




Engineer has full authority over water wells.  He issues permits to




drill wells, along with concurrent rules and regulations (NMSA 75-11-13).




In addition it is his responsibility to issue and enforce rules and




regulations concerning the construction, capping and plugging of wells,




and to prevent waste of groundwater above or below the surface (NMSA




75-12-4 through 8).




        Current status.  To explain and enforce the statutory obligations




concerning groundwater, the State Engineer has issued "Rules and Regula-




tions Governing Drilling of Wells and Appropriation and Use of Ground




Water in New Mexico" (1966).  These rules include standards and specifi-




cations on well construction, casing, cementing, repair and plugging




(4-13 through 4-19.1).  In addition, New Mexico's State Engineer has




provided  rules  and regulations  for test or  exploratory wells which




might  encounter groundwater  or  affect  the strata (4-20 through 4-22).




        Potential feasibility.   These  comprehensive rules  and




regulations concerning water  and exploratory wells  are being en-




forced.   Therefore,  no further  action,  other than a possible increase




in personnel,  is recommended  in New Mexico.
                                  139

-------
   UTAH—Action #4


           Agency responsible and legal authority.  Utah assigns responsibility

   for water wells  to the Office of the State Engineer (UCA 73-2-1).   He

   is authorized to "plug,  repair, or to otherwise control artesian wells

   which are wasting public water . .  .," and to plug abandoned wells at

   state expense (UCA 73-2-21).   The State Engineer also exercises  control

   over well drillers (UCA 73-3-22), and issues permits to drill subject

   to compliance with the published rules and regulations  (UCA 73-2-25).

   The Division of  Oil,  Gas and  Mining requires the plugging  of ex-

   ploratory drill  holes in Rule C-12, authorized by URS 40-6.

           Current  status.   The  state  recognizes the importance of  ground-

   water quality, aquifer protection,  and the need for determining  recharge

   rates.   To this  effect the State Engineer has an ongoing program which

   tests and licenses well  drillers, plots the location of new wells,  and

   repairs  or seals wasting wells.   The Division of Oil,  Gas and

   Mining also has  an active enforcement program.

           Potential  feasibility.   There  is  widespread  recognition

   in Utah  of  the potential  effects  of abandoned wells  of  any  type.

   Such wells  are sought  out on  a  regular  basis  as  an  integral  part of the

   ongoing  water, oil and gas well control program.   The only possible

   need for additional action in Utah  might be an increase in personnel

   funding  to more  thoroughly control  new wells,  and to more  vigorously

   seek out abandoned wells.   However, no  specific action  is  recommended

   for Utah.
        "Utah, Department of National Resources, Division of Water Rights,
"Thirty-ninth Biennial Report:  1972-1974."  Salt Lake City, 1974, p. 6.
                                  140

-------
WYOMING—Action #4




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The Wyoming State




Engineer has the general authority to implement the state's policy




over underground water, including requiring reports from well drillers.




This authority extends to establishing standards for well construction,




requiring capping of flowing wells, preventing above or below ground




waste, and abating or sealing any well polluting underground water




(WSA 41-126).  WSA 35-502.22:1 authorizes- the Administrator



of the Division of Land Quality to enforce the sealing, capping or




plugging of drill holes.




        Current status.  As in all of the  Colorado River Basin states,




Wyoming recognizes the need to preserve and protect its groundwater




resources.  Although insufficient technical data are available on




supplies, aquifer make-up and recharge rates, the state is enforcing




"Minimum Water Well Construction Standards," and is designating




"control" basins as information becomes available.  There is a bill



concerning groundwater production before the current legislature,





and exploratory wells were controlled by statute this year (1977).  The



State Engineer is also trying to get statutory authority to license




water well and pump installation contractors.




         Potential feasibility.  There seems to be sufficient authority




to control contamination from both working water wells  and abandoned




water wells.  The State Engineer would probably benefit from increased




manpower.
                                  141

-------
The collection of technical data concerning groundwater seems

to be imperative, and will require an undetermined amount of study


funding.
                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                        X
        Political                    X
        Administrative	X	
                              142

-------
ACTION
4. Require minimum
standards for wa-
ter well con-
struction, and
require plugging
of abandoned wa-
ter wells and
exploratory drill
holes , to avoid
contamination of
groundwater
strata.












•t-
OJ






































£
^-l
1
H
p














cn
E-1
£
C/}
e-,
"Z
Ed

0



H
£
i—
<
ft
^
2
^
E-
ARIZONA
ARS 45-3
State Land Depart-
ment can designate
critical ground-
water areas .
ARS 45-317
Conditions for
well construction
to obtain permit
to drill.
ARS 45-319. A
Waste of ground-
water prohibited.
^ells must be
_____j __ p -inniari
with shut-off
valves .
No leaky casing,
or lack of cas-
ings, pipes, fit-
tings , valves or
pumps to allow
waste. Drill holes
must be plugged as
determined by the
Oil and Gas Conser-
vation Commission.
Specif T c
Irrigation wells
controlled or not
allowed in criti-
cal groundwater
areas . Anti-waste
statute enforced
to the degree be-
.ieved possible.
Critical ground-
water areas are
jeing designated
when necessary.
Expansion of
critical areas
possible . More
manpower possible
to improve en-
*
Quality Control
could take a hand
in protecting
municipalities as
to water qualitv.
May need enforce-
o'ment in area or
(exploratory veils.
CALIFORiNIA
COLORADO
-/C 231, 13800, CBS 37-90-1 37, 138
13801, 13802, 13803, CRS 37-91-101 to 112
13804 The State Engineer
The Water Code re- issues permits for
quires the Dept. of construction, and
Jater Resources to prohibits waste of
set standards and or contamination
transmit them to by groundwater. He
the Regional Water also ensures prop-
Quality Control er construction,
boards for examina- repair and abando ra-
tion. The Regiona [ raent of flowing
Boards then submit wells. CRS 37-90-
the standards to the 106,110 The Ground
aff .j • t- ' J \ -t t- & C
counties . If the cor trols and regu-
city or county C3es lates wells in des-
not act in 120 cays, ignated basins, i ti-
the Regional Board eluding construction
may enact the The Water Quality
standards . Control Commission
regulates subsur-
Specific face disposal wells.
Drill holes must
be plugged re: Oil
and Gas Commission
rules .
^Specific
Standards have been Regulations are
issued and are
being implemented
regionally as condi-
tions permit .







Action is underway,
no further inter-
vention is neces-
sary in the Colorado
River Basin .





being enforced .
Funds being
sought for
monitoring
program.






Action is general-
ly underway. More
technical data are
needed before
determination of
necessity for more
action , including
area of explora-
tory wells. More
enforcement per-
sonnel are needed.

i

NEVADA
NRS 533.325 to
533.435
State Engineer
has authority
over groundwa—
ter; from ap-
propriation,
designating ba-
sins , to wells .
NRS 534.060
Can demand or
enact repairs
on defective
wells.
NRS 5 34 170 Well
drillers must be
licensed and
keep log of geo-
logic informa-
tion .
NRS 534.020
Waste of ground-
water or pollu-
tion is prohib-
ited.

Specific

S tatutes and
"Rules and Regu-
lations for
Drilling Wells"
are being en-
forced .






Action is under-
way . May need
more specific
rules and regu-
lations regard-
ing abandoned
wells. Need
some specificity
concerning
NEW MEXICO
NMSA 75-11-13
NMSA 75-12-4
through 8 The State
Engineer has full
authority over wa-
ter wells. He is-
sues permits to
drill , rules and
regulations for
construction and
plugging, and is
empowered to pre-
UTAH
WYOMING
UCA 73-2-1, WSA 41-126 The
73-2-21 The
State Engineer
has control over
all water, in-
cluding wells ,
and has authority
to plug or repair
artesian wells
wasting water,
and to plug aban-
doned wells .
State Engineer re-
quires reports from
well drillers, es-
tablishes standards
for construction, re-
quires capping of
flowing wells, pre-
vents water waste
above or below ground,
and can abate any
condition or seal
vent waste above or ! UCA 73-3-22, !any well polluting
below the surface. UCA 73-3-25 The underground water.
TK T H r a
lations include
groundwater wells ,
artesian wells, and
exploratory wells.

Specific







Statutes and the
"Rules and Regula-
tions Governing
Drilling of Wells
. . ." are being
enforced .






Action is underway.
May need more en-
forcement person-
nel , but no inter-
vention is recom-
mended .



exploratory i
State Engineer WSA 35-SQ2 "•!
issues licenses [authorizes Land
for well drillers buality administration
and permits, sub- (to seal, cap or plug
ject to rules and [drill holes.
regulations , for
the drilling of JSpecific
water wells. The
Division of Oil, 1
Gas & Mining con-
trols exploratory '
wells under UCA
40-6.
Specific
Statutes and
rules and regula-
tions are being
enforced .


Statutes and rules
and regulations are
being enforced .




!





Action is under-
way. May need
Need for manpower.
Need to accumulate
more funding for 'sufficient tech-
enforcement. How-jnical data to deter-
ever, no interven-jmine control areas ,
tion is recom- better well stan-
mended.
dards. etc.



wells , and ! '.
stronger en- !
1 i '
f orcement i i i


-------
     5.  To reduce salinity from agriculture,  use  irrigation  return
        flow in nonagricultural areas; e.g.,  for  power plant
        cooling.  Utilize energy facility siting  procedures  to
        encourage the location of energy facilities in areas where
        the water requirements of such facilities could be met
        utilizing saline and other low quality waters.

        Background of the action.  Depending  on local conditions,

power plant siting regulations could be used  to reduce the salinity

level of the Colorado River in that such regulations could require

power plants (as well as coal gasification and liquifaction  plants,

etc.) to locate near sources of saline water.  There are, obviously,

numerous locational factors which influence energy facility  siting
           ^
decisions.   To reduce the salinity loading characteristics  of the

Colorado River Basin, proximity to and availability of saline water

needs to be considered as a locational factor.  Other locational

factors being roughly equal, it would be appropriate to locate energy

facilities in such a way as to utilize available  sources of  saline

water.

        Once established, saline water would  be used to meet the water

needs of the energy facility.  This would keep such water from
         -'•Although analogous  to the proposed action in providing for
 the consumptive beneficial use of low quality waters,  coal slurry
 pipelines  utilizing such waters are not included.   The proposed
 implementation of a coal slurry system was determined not  to meet
 the selection criteria  listed in Chapter IV,  because  the structural
 and legal  obstacles which would have to be overcome (e.g., statutes
 prohibiting  export of water  from a state,  basin of origin  doctrines,
 appurtenancy doctrines  and other restrictions on the  transferability
 of water rights)  caused the  action to be considered infeasible, at
 least at the  present time.

         o
         See generally:  Norman Wengert and Robert M.  Lawrence, Regional
Factors in Siting  and Planning Energy Facilities in the Eleven Western
States,  Fort Collins:   Report to the Western  Interstate Nuclear Board,
November 1976.

                                 144

-------
entering the stream system, and would substitute for the use of higher




quality water which otherwise would be removed from the stream system.




        The prospect of large-scale energy development has motivated




some Colorado River Basin states to develop energy planning and



energy research policies.  The fact that such policies in the states




of the study region consider environmental, economic and social




aspects of energy development indicates  that the development of




facilities to utilize saline waters is,  at the very least,  a promis-




ing possibility.
                                145

-------
ARIZONA—Action #5


        Authority.  Plans for proposed  energy  facilities in Arizona


must be submitted to the Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting


Committee  (ARS 40-360.02).  This committee was established under and


is responsible to the Arizona Corporation Commission.  In its considera-


tion of a proposed energy facility  site, the siting committee is


required to consider numerous factors including the total environ-


ment of the area affected,  the technical practicability of the


proposed facility, and other factors which may arise under either


state or federal law  (ARS 40-360.06.A).


        The Arizona Power Authority, however,  has  the responsibility


to develop comprehensive plans for  electric power  under its juris-


diction (ARS  30-123.A).  Specifically,  the Power Authority is to work


toward the inauguration, construction and operation of new projects


 (ARS 30-122.A).  The Power  Authority is administered by the Arizona


Power Commission.


        Finally, the State  Fuel and Energy Office, which was established


by executive  order, has the responsibility for considering the  effects


of energy  development on agricultural production.  The Fuel and Energy


Office has broad authority  to conduct investigations into total social

                                                    o
and economic  costs of energy development in Arizona.


        Current status.   The Power Plant and Transmission Line


Siting  Committee functions  primarily in  response to the needs of


the energy companies.   If  neither  the siting committee nor the
        -^Arizona,  Office of the Governor, Executive Order 75-1.
                                  146

-------
Arizona Corporation Commission approves an application within  two


months of its submission, construction can begin without such


approval.^  The energy companies presenting applications to the


siting committee choose the sites to be presented.  The intended


sites (as well as alternatives) are selected by the energy developers.


The siting committee functions primarily with a "veto" power over


private sector decision-making.  Since all preliminary work is done


by the energy companies,  actual involvement of the siting committee


in planning leading to an application for approval of a specific


site is minimal.


        Functioning of the committee is further hampered by the


fact that the committee does not have its own staff.    Staff responsi-


bilities are shared by the state agencies whose representatives comprise


the committee.  Finally,  decisions of the committee can be altered


by the Arizona Corporation Commission.   In practice, the absence


of both staff resources and real  (i.e., enforceable) authority have


negated much of the impact that the committee could have had

                                        Q
regarding power plant siting in Arizona.
         Wengert and Lawrence, Regional Factors in Siting, p. 11-25.
        5Ibid., p. 11-28.


        6Ibid., p. 11-25.
        7Ibid.,  p. 11-26.


        8Ibid.,  p. II-29.
                                 147

-------
         ?otentlj^J_easi^ilit2;.  Both the Arizona Corporation

 Commission and the Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Com-

 mittee can modify applications regarding proposed sites.9

 In considering such applications, water is seen as a key variable.

         The siting committee, however, has limited authority.

 Questions have been raised as to whether the siting committee can

 enforce the decisions and stipulations that the committee has made

 regarding a specific siting application.10 This lack of authority

 is shared by the corporation commission with regard to Indian lands.

 Neither agency appears to have enforceable authority regarding the

 siting of energy facilities on Indian lands.

         The feasibility of the proposed action is brought into question

 by the strict appurtenancy of water to specific lands that arises

 under Arizona water law.11  Water rights  can  be transferred for  use

 other than for irrigation if the water can no longer be economically

 or beneficially used on the original lands.   The procedure is  much

 more  restrictive than in those states which do not  have a strict
                       -i o
 appurtenancy doctrine.

        The feasiblity  of the  proposal may also be  inhibited by

 the general rule  that downstream junior appropriators can rely on
        9lbid., p. 11-26.

       10Stanford Western Energy Policy  Study, Power Plant  Siting in the
Southwest:  A Context for Decisions,  Stanford University:   Graduate School
of Business, October 12, 1976, pp. 23-24.

         George E. Radosevich and Gaylord V. Skogerboe, Irrigation
Return Flow Quality Control Through Improved Legal Systems, Fort
Collins:   Resources Development and Administration, Inc., April 1977
(draft report), p. VI-8.
       12
         Ibid., p. VI-22.          14g

-------
                                                13
 return flows as  a  source  of  their  water  rights.     In Arizona,

 the  rule  seems to be that a  downstream junior  appropriator  cannot

 compel  an upstream user to continue wasteful practices.     It  is

 open to question whether  this precedent applies  to  altered  uses

 which alter  downstream return flow patterns.   The rights  of senior

 appropriators to enjoin changes in use, and to be compensated  for

 damage  resulting from such changes, is an established  aspect of the

 property  right concept of western water law.

                                                              Major
        Potential Feasibility:  Feasible    Questionable     Obstacle
        Legal                                   X
        Political                               X
        Administrative	%	


        In the final analysis, the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission

Line Siting Committee has  limited authority to implement the proposed

action.  Both the siting committee and the corporation commission,

moreover,  have been seen as  being both pro-development and a "pro-

moter of growth."15  If true, policies which could significantly

increase costs to the energy industry are unlikely to be adopted.
       13Ibid., p. VI-34.
         Ibid.

         Wengert and Lawrence, Regional Factors in Siting, pp. 11-27, 28.

       •'-"Stanford Western Energy Policy Study, Power Plant Siting, p. 24.
                                149

-------
CALIFORNIA—Action #5




        Authority.  The State Energy Resources Conservation and Devel-




opment Commission (the Energy Commission) has jurisdiction over the




location of energy facilities in California (Pub. R. Code 25000).




Exceptions to this grant of jurisdiction concern the location of




power plants in coastal zones and air quality requirements of pro-




posed facilities.  When coastal zone proposals are made, the Coastal




Zone Conservation Commission must agree to the proposed site.  Air




pollution requirements are a function of the Air Pollution Control




Districts.  The Energy Commission is required by law to consider al-




ternate sites to those proposed by energy development concerns as




power plant sites (Pub. R. Code 25512).  The Commission is also em-




powered to develop those rules and regulations which it perceives as




being necessary  (Pub. R. Code 25218 [e]).




        Finally, the Commission has the authority to conduct siting




studies concerning specific sites, formulate energy development




policies and investigate other topics of particular statewide impor-




tance (Pub. R. Code 25216[c]).  In general, it would appear that the




State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission has




ample authority  to implement the proposed salinity control measure.




        Current status.  The Energy Commission was established in




January 1975.  Its general authority extends to include forecasting




energy needs and demands, evaluation and certification of proposed




sites and designs, evaluation and promotion of new generation and con-




servation techniques, implementation of conservation measures and prepa-




ration of a biennial report to the governor arid legislature on state





                                   150

-------
policy needs.  At present, however, the newness of the Energy Commis-




sion and its lack of experience under relevant enabling legislation




prevents a thorough analysis of Energy Commission operations.    In




fact, the first siting case came before the Energy Commission in




August 1976.18  The newness of both the Energy Commission and the




siting processes being developed have been seen as constituting "one




of the largest sources of uncertainty to California utilities at-



                                   19
tempting to make long-range plans."




        Concerning implementation of the proposed action, the Energy




Commission has developed a list of 11 screening factors which are to




be considered in evaluating sites for proposed energy facilities.



                                                                         20
Number 58 of the list is "Areas of Substantial Waste Water Availability."




The significance of the availability of wastewater is an issue which the




Energy Commission seems to view as being one of regional or local



           21
importance.




        In discussing the importance of the availability of wastewater




as a locational factor in energy facility siting, the Energy Commission




referred to "The California Water Plan—Outlook in 1974."  This report,




prepared by the Department of Water Resources, stressed the promising
          Wengert and Lawrence,  Regional Factors in Siting, p. 11-10.



        18Ibid.




        19Stanford Western Energy Policy Study, Power Plant Siting, p. 18.



        20
          Facility Siting Division, California Energy Commission,

Biennial Report,  Power Plant Siting Report, November 1976, p. II-9.




        21Ibid.
                                    151

-------
potential of the use of wastewater  for use by energy facilities.

The Energy Commission commented:

        Because of the increasing demands being placed on
        freshwater sources in California, more attention
        is being focused on the use of wastewater wherever
        appropriate.  According to  the Department of Water
        Resources, reclamation of wastewater for power
        plant cooling constitutes one of the most promising
        potential sources of water, especially in areas
        where it is now being disposed of into the ocean.
        A conservative estimate is  that reclamation projects
        will probably provide about one million acre-feet
        of "new" water in California by 1990.  Coincidentally
        anticipated power plant needs for cooling water in
        1991 have been estimated of 1.1 million acre-feet.

        The Palo Verde Valley and the Yuma Valley are the only two

areas of California where return flows reenter the Colorado River.

The proposed Sundesert nuclear power plant is designed to utilize

irrigation return flow from the Palo Verde drain as a source of

cooling water.  If this is done, the consumptive water needs of the

plant (17,000 acre-feet per year) would reduce the salinity level

of the Colorado River by 6-8 ppm.  This water is to be obtained
                                                            23
from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.     A

second unit, the 17,000 acre-feet of water requirement of which will

be met by retiring 3,000 acres of poor quality agricultural lands,

is currently being developed.
        22Ibid., p. 11-19.  The priority of water use for cooling is:
(L) ocean water, (2) wastewater, and (3) low quality irrigation rpfnrn
flows.  Since power plants must be located away from fault ^ones (e.g..
near the coast where both ocean water and wastewater from existing
population center are avaiiabie) the priority of ube shifts to low
quality irrigation return flows.

        23Interview with John H. Lauten, General Manager, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California,
November 29, 1976.

                                  152

-------
        Potential feasibility.  The potential feasibility for ef-




fectively implementing the proposed action is a function of three




factors:  (1) the availability of an adequate supply of water




through exchange agreements with water contractors; (2) the rela-




tionship of the Energy Commission to other state agencies and the




federal government;  and (3) California water law.




        In the Colorado River Basin portion of California, because




the state's full apportionment of water has been contracted, the




feasibility of siting power plants so as to use agricultural drainage




water is dependent on obtaining an adequate water supply through ex-




change agreements with water contractors.   The June 1975 policy of the




State Water Resources Control Board on the use and disposal of inland




waters used for power plant cooling influences the location of power




plants.  In the case of the Sundesert nuclear power plant, for example,




the necessary water  was made available through an exchange agreement




with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.




         The  relationship  of  the  Energy  Commission to other  state




 agencies  is  an  issue which may affect  the  potential feasibility of




 the  proposed action.   At  present,  the jurisdictional relationship




 of the Energy Commission  to  other  state agencies  has not  been  fully




 determined.   Beginning in 1975,  the  state  Air  Resources Board  has




 been  involved in power plant  siting  decisions.  This involvement has




resulted from the establishment of air quality standards which may




not allow certain industries in specific areas.   These quality




standards are so stringent, some have argued, that it would be




impossible for a coal-fired power plant to locate anywhere near load
                                153

-------
 centers existing in southern California.25  This is of critical


 importance in that the Supreme Court of California has held that Air


 Pollution Control Districts, under the general state supervision


 of the Air Resources Board, can prohibit the construction of a power


 plant even though the state Public Utilities Commission had granted


 a permit.


         Both the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and the State


 Water Resources Control Board are also involved in  power plant siting


 decisions.   Policies of these two agencies may encourage the inland


 location of power plants designed to  utilize wastewater to  meet


 operating water requirements.   Numerous  jurisdictional  questions,


 however,  may have to be resolved  before  the  Energy  Commission  would


 be able  to  implement the proposed action.  Uncertainties  regarding


 the authority of different  state  agencies  must  be clarified either


 through  legislative  revision or through judicial intervention.


         A final  issue bearing on  the  potential  feasibility  of  the


 proposed  action  in California is  state water law.   California  appears


 to  be a  "limited attachment" state regarding the appurtenancy  of a

                                27
 water right to  specific lands.     This would seem to allow  water


 rights  to be transferred to different lands  and uses providing that
       25Ibid., p.  22.


       26Ibid., p.  21.   See  specifically  Orange  County APCD v.  PUG,

4 Cal. 3d.  945, 484 P.  2d  1361  (1971).


       27Radosevich and Skogerboe, Achieving Irrigation Return Flow
Quality Control, p. VI-22.
                                 154

-------
proper "measures and adjustments" are made to prevent  the  impair-

                                                 28
ment of the rights of other water right holders.


        The transferability of a water right may,  however,  be


restricted by both a county of origin doctrine and the Watershed


Protection Act of 1933.  Under these doctrines, the inhabitants of


a county or basin have the authority "to reclaim water in  the  future

                                         29
if needed from noncounty or basin uses."    The rights of  senior


water appropriators to receive the full measure of their water rights


is a well established doctrine in western water law.  As regards


reliance on the irrigation return flows, courts have generally held


that junior appropriators can rely on such return  flows and may

                                     30
protect their rights in such sources.    Such restrictions on trans-


ferability may affect the implementation of the proposed action.


        The Metropolitan Water District Act (§ 131), however, allows


the District to sell water outside its boundaries and to exchange water


(specifically brackish wastewater and irrigation return flows) to


encourage the use of low quality water  in power plant cooling.  This


authority is the basis for the exchange between the Metropolitan Water


District and San Diego Gas and Electric which will meet the water


needs of the Sundesert nuclear power plant.31
       28 TK-,,
         Ibid


        9 Ibid., p. VI-33.


       30 Ibid., p. VI-34.
       on
       -^Interview with  John H. Lauten,  loc.  cit.
                                  155

-------
                                                       Major
Potential Feasibility:   Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
Legal                                     X
Political                                 X
Administrative              X
                          156

-------
COLORADO—Action #5




        Authority.  Colorado has not enacted energy facility siting




legislation.   At present, permits for the construction of new facilities




are issued by several different state and county agencies.  These per-




mits are discussed more fully in the following section.




        Current status.  At least eight different state and county




agencies have been identified as being in the approval process prior




to the construction of energy facilities.  The Public Utilities Com-




mission must issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity




prior to either the construction of new facilities or the extension




of existing facilities.  The Air Pollution Control Commission, as




a part of the Department of Health, must issue a permit for any new




air contamination source.  The Water Quality Control Commission, also




in the Department of Health, administers a permit system to regulate




the discharge of pollutants into state waters.  The State Engineer's




Office, a part of the Department of Natural Resources, approves all





dams required bv industrial facilities if they store over




1,000 acre-feet of water or require"a dam higher than ten



feet.  If the proposed facility is designed to utilitize groundwater,




the Ground Water Commission, also a part of the Department of Natural




Resources, must issue a pumping permit.  Water courts in the different




water divisions of the state must, via an adjudicatory process,




allocate surface waters for use in the proposed facility.^2




        The State Land Use Commission becomes involved in the process




if specific issues are referred to it by a political subdivision of
                  and Lawrence, Regional Factors in Siting, pp. 11-74-76.



                                   157

-------
the state (e.g., local governments, municipalities, counties, etc.1*.
Such n referral is hasrd on a dot onnl nat i on bv I hr  local suKI i v i:; loit
that the proposed facility falls within an area of state interest.
Also on a local lovol, the various Boards  of County Commissioners
have authority regarding numerous energy facility siting considerations
                                           33
(e.g., zoning, solid waste disposal, etc.).
         Potential feasibility.  There are relatively few areas  in Colorado
where saline waters and fuel resources  (e.g.," coal or oil shale) exist
near each other so the practicality of the action is limited.
         It is apparent from the fragmented, multiple-permit process
existent in Colorado that initial siting decisions are made in  the
private sector prior to public evaluation of the proposal.  This type
of system is not conducive to implementation of the proposed action in
that public officials retain only "veto" authority.  Though such authority
could be used to encourage specific energy facility sites, all initial
planning remains a function of private energy corporations.
        Current emphasis on local decision-making would also inhibit
implementation of the action.  In a recent action, county officials
were not willing to identify a proposed power plant site as an area of
               34
state interest.    Consequently, the State Land Use Commission did
not take any action on the proposal.  According to local officials,
county-level rezoning and "special use" permit requirements were
                                                        35
adequate to control power plant siting and construction.    This type
of attitude, which seems to perceive energy facility siting as being
        33Ibid.
        •^Richard J. Schneider, "Delay in Starting Pawnee Plant  is
Rejected," Rocky Mountain News, April 9, 1977, p. 32.
        35Ibid.
                                158

-------
primarily local in nature, would also not be conducive to implementa-

tion of the proposed action.
                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:   Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                       X
        Political                                               X
        Administrative                                          X
                                  159

-------
NEVADA—Action #5




        Authority.  Authority regarding energy policy planning and




facility siting is divided in Nevada between the state Energy Re-




sources Advisory Board and the Public Service Commission.  The Energy




Resources Advisory Board is charged with the responsibility of




developing both a state energy policy (NRS 523.070[1]), and long-




range plans to minimize the environmental impacts of energy develop-




ment (NRS 523.070[4]).  The Advisory Board is directed to cooperate




with other state planning agencies regarding the development of the




state's energy resources (NRS 523.080).





        Prior to the construction of an energy facility,  "e.g., .  .  .




any plant or equipment within this state used directly or indirectly




for the generation and transmission of electrical energy ..." (NRS




704.855[2]), a permit must be obtained from the Public Service Com-




mission (NRS 704.840).  Applications must include alternate sites




for the proposed facility and an analysis of the environmental ad-




vantages and disadvantages of both the proposed site and alternate




sites  (NRS 704.870[l][d]).




        Permits issued by the Public Service Commission may be con-




ditioned "as the commission may deem appropriate" (NRS 704.890[1]).




The State Environmental Commission is required to review all applica-




tions presented to the Public Service Commission regarding proposed




energy facilities (NRS 704.875).




        Current status.  The Public Service Commission cannot grant




an application for approval of a specific facility site without




first determining that the proposed facility is actually needed, that







                                  160

-------
adverse environmental impacts have been minimized, that the proposed




facility is in conformity with state and local laws, and that con-




...I nii-l Ion ol UK- l.irlllly IM I" I In- pulillc Inlrivsl. '   It  Is t>l




interest to note that the Public Service Commission, pursuant to the




granting of a permit, can require a utility to produce for Nevada "an




amount of electrical energy equal to or less than the amount exported,




as the Commission may prescribe" (NRS 704.892[2]).




        Unfortunately, certain energy facilities are exempt from the




permit procedure of the Public Service Commission.  Facilities for




which permits were applied for prior to July 1, 1971, are exempt,




as are facilities for which permits were granted prior to that date




(NRS 704.865[3][a] and [b]).  Furthermore, facilities for which a




utility "... has incurred indebtedness to finance all or part of




the cost" of construction are also exempt  (NRS 704.865[3][6]) .




Depending on the policies developed by the Public Service Commission,




this "debt  incurred" exemption may well cover a majority of




present and future energy facilities.




        Nevada  currently uses sewage effluent for electric power




plant  cooling.  Permits issued by the State Engineer provide  for




increased usage in the future, thereby reducing salt contributions




and saline  return flows to Lake Mead via Las Vegas Wash.




         Potential  feasibility.   The Public Service  Commission has




 the  requisite  authority  to  implement the  proposed action.   This would




 be especially  true were  the proposal incorporated into the state




 energy plan being developed by the  state  Energy Resources Advisory




 Board.  Implementation of  the proposed action is, therefore,




 a function of  the internal  policies of the Public Service Commission.




 The  only  foreseeable hinderance  is  the broad  exemption for energy
        36
          'Wengert and_Lawrence,  Regional Factors in Siting_, p. 11-71.

-------
facilities for which the utility has incurred a debt.  Such exemptions




may inhibit implementation of the proposal.




        The potential feasibility of the proposed action may also be




inhibited by the nature of western water law.  Before the action




could be implemented, questions concerning the transferability of




a water right (e.g., basin of origin doctrines, appurtenancy, etc.)




and potential injury to downstream users (both junior and senior)




must be answered.




        Nevada has a strict rule inhibiting the transfer of a water




right.37  Such a strict appurtenancy doctrine, which ties water rights


                  O Q

to specific lands,   would substantially interfere with implementation




of the proposed action in that low quality water could not be trans-




ferred to energy facility locations.




        The property right nature of a water right and the right of




downstream senior appropriators to recover if this right is interrupted




is well established.  Regarding the rights of junior appropriators,




courts have ruled that "junior appropriators may rely upon .  . .



                                                                39
return flows" and may protect their rights to this water source.




These rights may inhibit implementation of the proposed action by




allowing existing appropriators to restrict (via injunctive relief)




changes in water use patterns adversely affecting them.  Since any
        -^Radosevich and Skogerboe, Achieving Irrigation Return Flow

Quality Control, p. VI-22.
        38Ibid.




        39Ibid., p. VI-34.
                                 162

-------
change in existing use patterns will affect downstream users, the

potential feasibility of the proposal may be substantially diminished.
                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:    Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                                    X
        Political                                 X
        Administrative              X
                                163

-------
NEW MEXICO—Action #5




        Authority.  Two state agencies have specific responsibilities




concerning the siting of energy facilities in New Mexico.  Both the




state Energy Resources Board and the Public Utilities Commission are




directly involved in siting decisions.  Numerous other state agencies




may be involved indirectly depending on the nature of the specific siting applica-




tion (e.g., State Engineer for a water use permit, Water Quality




Control Commission, Environmental Improvement Agency concerning air




quality standards, Coal Surfacemining Commission for general mining



     v 40
plans).



        The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has the authority to




supervise the location of energy facilities.  In general, the PUC




must approve proposed energy facilities unless they are in conflict




with either air or water pollution control standards.  The PUC has



the authority to  override local authorities in issuing permits for




energy facility construction (NMS 65-7-1.2ff).




        The state Energy Resources Board is authorized to establish




goals and priorities for state funded energy research and development




(NMS 65-12-7[H]) and to work in conjunction with other state agencies




in developing state energy policies  (NMS 65-12-7[I]).  The Board is




empowered to determine state siting policies (NMS 65-13-8[A][3]) and




may use state funds to construct specific facilities (NMS 65-13-8[B][3]).




        It is possible,  although uncertain, that the Energy Resources Board and



the Public Utilities Commission, if operating together, would have
        ^°Energy Resources Board, State of New Mexico, A State Energy

Plan for New Mexico, Santa Fe, January 1977, p. 39.




                                164

-------
adequate authority to implement the proposed action.  At present, the



jurisdictional limits of the authority of different state agencies is


under study in New Mexico.  The authority of the aforementioned state



agencies to implement the proposal may be altered when one of the


"possible solutions" proposed by the Energy Resources Board is adopted.


        Current status.  The energy resources available in New Mexico



have gained substantial importance in recent years because of an in-


creased national awareness of energy needs.  It has been alleged that


New Mexico views itself in a position somewhat similar to the OPEC


nations in that it is a small state whose energy resources are coveted

                             / O
by larger political entities.



        At present, the multiplicity of jurisdictional claims affecting


energy facility siting appears to be limiting the effectiveness of


both the Public Utilities Commission and the state Energy Resources


Board.  The current system appears to be ". . . replete with juris-


dictional gaps and diffused by fragmented and repetitive permit


requirements."^3



        It has been suggested that New Mexico's energy resources


requirements will be met by removing water from irrigated agriculture.



At present, it appears that energy interests are attempting to pur-


chase existing agricultural water rights.^  Those water rights granted
       41Ibid., p. 40-43.


       42
         Wengert and Lawrence, Regional Factors in Siting, p. 11-61.



         Energy Resources Board, A State Energy Plan, p.  39.


       44
         Interview with Eileen Grevey, Federal-State Liaison Board,

Energy Resources Board, Santa Fe, New Mexico, July 21, 1976.



                                165

-------
New Mexico under the Compact have not, however, been fully developed.

At present, New Mexico is using only one-fourth to one-half of its 730,000 acre-

feet allocation under the Compact.    It would not appear that agri-

cultural water would need to be diverted until these unallocated

waters are developed.  After that time, however, the impact of return

flows and other low quality water sources could encourage the imple-

mentation of the proposed action.

        It has been suggested that the water needs of energy develop-

ment could be met through a water/energy exchange agreement between

New Mexico and California.  Under this proposal, New Mexico would divert

a portion of California's water allocation in return for a commitment

to supply California with the energy produced.  The political feasibility


 of such a suggestion is open to question, however, and it does not appear

 to be an immediately viable possibility.  Finally, it must be noted

 that the Governor's Energy Impact Task Force is considering the im-

 pacts of energy development on the salinity level of the Colorado River.

        Potential  Fcasihility.  The potential  feasibility of  ImplementinR

the proposed action  in New Mexico appears to be a  function of both

existing and proposed institutional structures relating  to energy facility

siting.  As previously discussed, numerous state agencies have a "piece

of the action."  The Public Utilities  Commission,  for example, cannot
         Interview with Steve Reynolds,  State Engineer,  Santa  Fe,
New Mexico, September 9,  1976.
                                  166

-------
establish more stringent air and water quality standards than those
                                                    46
promulgated by the Environmental Improvement Agency.
        There do not appear to be restrictions (e.g., appurtenancy,
basin of origin doctrine) on the transferability of water rights in
New Mexico other than the traditional requirement not to impair the
water rights of downstream users.47  Such impairment would seem to
include an interruption of the use of downstream junior appropriators
of existing irrigation return flows.    This, when combined with
the fact that a water right is conditioned by requirements of both
                                               49
beneficial use and good agricultural practices,   could inhibit
implementation of the proposed action.  An appropriator may not be
able to transfer a water right of such an amount that a downstream
user, regardless of junior or senior appropriator status, would be
injured.  If excess waters are a result of poor agricultural practices,
the appropriator may not have a water right to transfer.  In either
situation, the potential feasibility of the proposed action may be
substantially inhibited.
        There is uncertainty that the proposed action could be
implemented under the existing institutional authority
of the  State of New Mexico.  There are proposals, however, to revise
          Wengert and Lawrence, Regional Factors in Siting, pp. 11-60 to 11-61 •
        47
          Radosevich and Skogerboe, Achieving Irrigation Return Flow
Quality Control, pp. VI-21 to VI-22, VI-33 to VI-34.
        48Ibid., p. VI-34.
        49Ibid., p. VI-8.
                                  167

-------
the facility siting procedures in order to develop a "one-stop"

(single permit)  siting authority.    If such a procedure were developed,

implementation of the proposed action could be more easily facilitated.

                                                              Major
        Potential Feasibility:  Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                      X
        Political                  X
        Administrative             X
        If Action 5 is, or becomes, legally feasible in New Mexico,

there remain questions as to its economic feasibility.   Transport

of saline waters to energy facilities, or the alternative of relocating

facilities near such waters, both may involve additional expense.  Use

of saline waters also will involve additional treatment costs.
          Energy Resources Board, A State Energy Plan, p. 43.
                                    168

-------
UTAH—Action #5

        Authority;  Prior to 1977, Utah did not have power plant siting

legislation.  Because of the lack of a comprehensive siting policy, power

plant siting decisions were largely made hy energy developers.  The State's

role was primarily one of a "veto" authority in that a number of permits

from different State agencies were required before construction could

begin.

        Section 63-53 of the Utah Code established the Energy Conservation

and Development Council, which officially began operation April 1, 1977.

The Council primarily prepares recommendations on State energy policy

for consideration by other agencies.  Among the statutory functions and

duties of the Council are:

        (d)  To develop criteria for consideration by state agencies
        in the formulation of rules and regulations and standards
        and in the granting or disallowing of permits for energy
        resources development projects;

        (f)  Examine the feasibility and desirability of establish-
        ing energy corridors and energy transmission corridors and,
        if such corridors are feasible, to make recommendations and
        assist state agencies and local governments in the establish-
        ment of these corridors;

        (j)  To develop and recommend energy policy to the governor
        and to the legislature.

        In Utah, three State agencies in addition to the Energy Council

are directly involved in siting: the Water Pollution Committee (Division

of Health), the Air Conservation Committee (Division of Health), and the

Utah Public Service Commission.-^  If an energy company has rights to

adequate water to meet performance requirements, at least three permits

are required;  one from the Water Pollution Committee (for wastewater
        51-Wengert and Lawrence, Regional Factors in Siting, p. 11-72,
                                   169

-------
facilities), one from the Air Conservation Committee and one from


the Utah Public Service Commission.52  Advanced approval of plans


also must be obtained for drinking water facilities and solid


waste disposal.


        Current Status;  Although the Energy Conservation and


Development Council is new, other state agencies consider it likely


to be an effective organization, and expect that its recommendations


will be supported by other State officials.


        It has been suggested that Utah encourages development of


the State's energy resources.^3  Thus, it would seem, as in other


states, that restrictions and policies which would heavily burden


the public utilities industry would not be acceptable as long as


environmental impacts are adequately addressed.  Some transfers


of low quality water for energy development, specifically for


use by Utah Power and Light, have been accomplished.-^


        Potential Feasibility;  Water, both quantity and quality,


is but one factor in the power plant siting decision.  Although


the Energy Conservation and Development Council could conceivably


recommend a location or water supply system based on minimizing


salinity impacts, it is doubtful that this would be the controlling


consideration.  In Utah, water quality considerations and the eco-


nomics of agriculture and power plant cooling make it more likely


that power companies would purchase water rights from agriculture,
        52Stanford Western Energy Policy Study, Power Plant Siting, p. 27.

        c o
          Interview with Dan Lawrence, Utah Division of Water Resources,

Salt Lake City, Utah, July 15, 1976
                               170

-------
rather than use agricultural return flows.  At many sites, this

will also reduce the leaching of salt from irrigation of marginal

land.

        The feasibility of the action could be restricted by

certain water law doctrines in Utah.  While there do not appear

to be specific restrictions on the transferability of a water right,

it has been held that downstream junior appropriators can rely on

irrigation return flows.55  The court specifically held that such

appropriators could protect their rights in such sources of water."

In the Colorado River Basin in Utah, however, such re-use conflicts

would not be common.
                                                           Major
     Potential Feasibility:  Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
     Legal                                    x
     Political                 X
     Administrative            X	]	
                     and Skogerboe, Achieving Irrigation Return Flow
Quality Control, p. VI-34

        5"Ibid., See specifically East Bench Irrigation Co. v. Desert

Irrigation Co., 2 Utah 2d.   1970, 271 p. 2d 449 (1954).

                                171

-------
WYOMING—Action #5




        Authority.  Passage of the Wyoming Industrial Development and




Siting Act in March 1975, created a state Industrial Siting Adminis-




tration with an Industrial Siting Council appointed by the governor.




Under the enabling legislation, industrial facilities are defined as




including energy generating facilities  (WS 35-502.76[6]).  Prior to




the construction of an energy facility, a permit must be obtained




from the Industrial Siting Council.  This permit must contain a speci-




fication of the location of the facility.  This location is to be




determined by the applicant after taking environmental and water




factors, as well as the compatibility of the proposed site with land




use plans, into consideration (WS 35-502.81).  Studies regarding




specific sites must include water resource impacts and cooling system




requirements  (WS 35-502.84).  Finally,  research regarding the impact




of a proposed energy facility must be coordinated with other state




agencies  (WS  35-502.84).   The Act applies only to 100 megawatt (or larger)




conversion plants, synthetic natural gas plants producing more than




100 million cu.  ft. per day, liquid hydrocarbon plants with a 50




million bbls/day capacity, of industrial plant developments ex-




ceeding 50 million dollars cost.




        Passage of the Industrial Development and Siting Act has not




resulted in the establishment of a "one-stop" permit process which




industry spokesmen had advocated as a way of coordinating the number




of different permits required.  Because of this omission, an integrated




approach to the consideration of power  plant siting criteria, which




may have encouraged the implementation  of the proposed action, has




not been developed.




        Under the existing multi-permit system, the Public Service




Commission must issue a Certificate of  Public Convenience and Necessity.




Air, water and other environmental pollution control permits must be







                              172

-------
issued by the Department of Environmental Quality.58  Both the Public

Service Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality are

exempt from agency review requirements for applications presented to

the Industrial Siting Council.59  The PSC and the DEQ conduct their

own review procedures regarding specific applications made to them.

        Current status.   The existing permit system has been subject

to numerous criticisms.   The procedures of different permit-granting

agencies have resulted in numerous jurisdictional ambiguities and

varying timetables concerning specific applications."^  The Industrial

Siting Council has established a two-step permit process.   The first

step consists of the applicant showing why a certain site was selected,

that all applicable laws have been complied with, and that there are

no serious environmental or socioeconomic impacts.  The Council can

approve this application (with recommendations or changes) or proceed

to the second step of the process.  This occurs only if the applicant

fails to satisfy step one requirements.  This process has  been the

subject of some criticism.

        Currently, effective implementation of the proposed action

could be frustrated by the fragmented, multi-jurisdictional nature

of the siting and permit process in Wyoming.  The Missouri Basin

Power Project, for example, required approval from 23 different state
        CO
          Wengert and Lawrence, Regional Factors in Siting, p. 11-53.

        59Ibid.

          Sue Kearns and Steve Hoke, Examination of Wyoming's Regulatory
Permitting Process and Possible Alternatives, Cheyenne:  Office of the
State Planning Coordinator, August 1976, pp. 3-4.
        61
          Ibid.
                                173

-------
agencies in Wyoming.62  This type of process, as  it  currently exists,

could preclude implementation of the proposed action unless one of

the existing agencies chose to implement the proposal.

        Potential feasibility.  The potential feasibility of the

proposed action could be limited by the nature of the permit process

and by Wyoming water law.  While different proposals have been devel-

oped to alter the existing, multi-permit process,63  it is doubtful

that future siting decisions will affect the Colorado River in that

industrial and power plant sitings will more than likely occur in the
                             64
eastern portion of the state.    At present the Industrial Siting

Commission is too new to have developed policies regarding specific

siting issues.

        Wyoming has a strict appurtenancy doctrine regarding water

rights.    This would inhibit, if not prevent, the transfer of a

water right.  Such a transfer would be necessary were the proposal

to be implemented.  There are, however, numerous statutory exemptions

to this rule which may allow for implementation of the proposal.
          Ibid., p. 1.  See specifically Appendix, Item No. VI.

        63Ibid., pp. 9-48.

          Interview with Dr. Elaine Dinger, Director, Industrial Siting
Commission, Cheyenne, Wyoming, June 30, 1976.

        65Ibid.

        66Radosevich and Skogerboe, Achieving Irrigation Return Flow
Quality Control, p. VI-8.

        67Ibid., p. VI-22.
                                   174

-------
The courts, generally, have held that junior appropriators have a
                                          /TO
right to existing irrigation return flows.    The Wyoming Supreme

Court has ruled that an individual can capture and reuse wastewater

on that individual's property.^  However, such captured waste-

water cannot be transferred to other uses on different lands unless

a new appropriation is obtained.

        In the final analysis, existing institutional and legal

structures in Wyoming could severely restrict the feasibility of

the proposed action.

                                                              Ma j or
        Potential Feasibility:  Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                    X
        Political                                X
        Administrative                           X
        68Ibid., p.  VT-34.

          Ibid.  See specifically Binning v. Miller, 55 Wyo. 451,
102 P. 2d. 54 (1940).
                                 175

-------
ACTION
5. Use irriga-
tion return flow
in nonagricultur-
al areas ; e.g.,
for power plant
cooling. Modify
power plant
siting regula-
tions to encourage
location of power
plants near
saline water
sources.











i— *
ON













































>H
X
o
1C
b
ower under its
jurisdiction.
40-360.02 Plans
for electric
facilities must
be submitted to
the Power Plant
and Transmission
Line Siting
Committee .
CALIFORNIA
Pub. R. 800 Power
plants to be lo-
cated to enhance
public benefits.
State to study
new methods of
power plant sit-
ing to enhance
public benefit.
Pub. R. 801 Re-
source Agency to
conduct such
studies .
Pub. R. 25000
Commission has
exclusive autho-
rity for power
plant siting.
Pub. R. 25512
Commission to
40-360. 06 (A) (6) j consider alter-
Cotal environment
of the area, (7)
the technical
practicality and
(9) additional
factors to be con-
sidered in cer-
tificate of envir-
onmental compati-
bility.
executive Order
75-1 State Fuel
and Energy Office
to consider ef-
fects on agricul-
tural production.
41-506 (c) Scien-
tific and Tech-
nological Advisory
Committee to ad-
vise Office of
Economic Planning
and Development
regarding impact
of technology on
economic develop-
ment.
Specific
native sites .
Pub. R. 25216 (c)
State Energy Re-
sources Conserva-
tion and Develop-
ment Commission
to research
energy develop-
ment, siting, and
other topics of
particular state-
wide importance.
Pub. R. 25218 (e)
Commission to
adopt rules and
regulations
necessary.

Specific









COLORADO
No specific
statute.















































NEVADA
523.070 State
energy resources
advisory board to
(1) develop a
state energy
policy and (4) de-
volop long-range
plans to reduce
environmental im-
pacts .
523.080 State
energy resources
advisory board to
work with other
planning agencies.
704.840 Permit
from Public Ser-
vice Commission
required prior to
construction of
utility.
704.870 (1) (d)
Application for
permit to include
alternate sites
and analysis of
advantages and dis-
advantages of all
sites.
704.875 State En-
vironmental Commis-
sion to review all
applications .
704.890(1) Permit
may be conditioned
by the Public
Service Commission.

Specific










NEW MEXICO
65-12-7CH) State
Energy Resources
Board to establish
goals and priori-
ties for state
funded research
and development;
(I) shall work
with other agen-
cies.
65-13-8CA) (3)
Board to determine
state siting
policies and (B)
(3) may use funds
to construct
facilities.
65-7-1. 2ff Public
Utilities Commis-
sion to supervise
location of energy
facilities. PUC
must approve fa-
cilities unless in
conflict with air
and water pollu-
tion standards .
PUC may override
local zoning deci-
sions .

Specific

















UTAH
No specific
statute .















































WYOMING
35-502.76(6)
Industrial facility
includes energy
generating fa-
cilities.
35-502.81 Per-
mit to locate to
consider environ-
mental factors and
water supply as
well as compatability
of facility with land
use plans . Per-
mits to be issued
by the State Office
of Industrial Sit-
ing Administration.
35-502.84 Studies
for siting deci-
sions to include
water resource and
impact and cooling
system requirements.
Research to be
coordinated with
other state agencies .

Specific






















-------
ACTION
5. Use irriga-
tion return flow
in nonagricultur-
al areas; e.g.,
for power plant
cooling. Modify
power plant
siting regula-
tions to en-
courage location
of power plants
near saline water
sources.











h- '
--J







































n
*
3

z
£
X
=)
_J



















£
^
EC
V
<
w
fc
<
E-i
3
tt
H
o
FU







ARIZONA
Power p Ian c and
Transmission Line
Siting Committee
approves a site
(or an alternative)
as the sites and
alternatives are
determined by
the utility com-
pany. The commit-
tee does not pick
out any specific
site. All
preliminary work
is done by the
utility company.






Feasibility de-
pendent on willing-
ness of the Power
Plant and Trans-
mission Line Sit-
ing Committee to
implement the
proposal. At pres-
ent, the Committee
only acts with £
"veto" authority.
Though it can
modify an applica-
tion as submitted,
the Committee
generally does not
deviate from the
desires of the
utilities industry.
The lack of both
staff and the abil-
ity to enforce its
decisions may in-
hibit Power Plant
and Transmission
Line Siting Com-
mittee recommenda-
tions. Strong
leadership by the
Arizona Corpora-
tion Commission
(continued)
CALIFORNIA
Stated priority for
water for power
plants is (1) ocean,
(2) waste , (3) poor
quality water. Be-
cause of seismic
activity, ocean
sites are inadvis-
able. Energy
Commission develop-
ing policies to
encourage use of
saline water.
Several plants
will use such water
from the Palo
Verde drain for
cooling. Energy
Commission too new
for adequate eval-
uation of function-
ing.
The Energy Commis-
sion has adequate
authority to imple-
ment the proposed
action. Existing
political difficul-
ties may, however,
inhibit such action.
The newness of the
Energy Commission
makes an accurate
projection of its
actual potential
nearly impossible.
Numerous j urisdic-
tional questions
may have to be re-
solved prior to
implementation of
the proposed action.
Also , California
water law doctrines
seem to be in con-
flict and may have
to be resolved
prior to implemen-
tation. California
approach is a good
model for the other
basin states in
that it specif ical-
(continued)
COLORADO
•Jo state agency
involved in
developing such
water development
policies . Pos-
sibility exists
that Councils of
Government may
develop such
policies within
specific regions .
Numerous agencies
must issue per-
mits for specific
projects .







Colorado does not
have a specific
siting statute.
Numerous differ-
ent state and lo-
cal political en-
titles have some
authority over
the location of
energy facilities.
This authority,
however, is pri-
marily a "veto"
power which may
be exercised
through the deni-
al of applica-
tions for requi-
site permits .
This procedure,
though somewhat
cumbersome , could
be used to en-
courage the loca-
tion of energy
facilities at
specific sites .
Implementation of
the proposed ac-
tion is a func-
NEVADA
Public Service
Commission will
not grant a per-
mit about find-
ings of need, en-
vironmental
impact and mini-
mization methods,
conformity with
state and local
laws , and
facility in
sublic Interest .
Currently using
effluent for
sower plant cool-
ing.





Public Utility
Commission has
adequate autho-
rity to implement
the proposed ac-
tion. The Com-
mission, follow-
ing its directive
to consider total
social costs in
evaluating power
plant siting pro-
posals , must
determine that
the facility is
in the public in-
terest. This
authority, when
combined with the
authority to
amend specific
siting applica-
tions , would ap-
pear more than
adequate to im-
plement the pro-
posed action.



tion of the >
(continued)
NEW MEXICO
Water for energy
deve lo pmen t to
come from
irrigated agri-
culture. Energy
people buying out
agricultural
water . Governor ' s
Energy Impact Task
Force to consider
salinity impacts .











Potential feasibil-
ity is a function
of both existing
and proposed insti-
tutional structures
Lines of authority
and jurisdictional
limits have yet to
be adequately de-
fined. Restric-
tions on the trans-
ferability of a
water right do not
seem to be a major
obstacle . Existing
proposals to revise
the power plant
siting process to
institute a "one-
stop" (single per-
mit) procedure
could enhance the
feasibility of the
proposed action if
the action were
endorsed by the
newly empowered
agency. Question-
able as to physical
and economic feasi-
bility.

UTAH
Environmental
Coordination
Committee
may be develop-
ing power plant
siting recom-
mendations . Air
Conservation Com-
mission and Utah
Public Service
Commission must
issue permit
prior to con-
struction.








Utah does not
have specific
power plant sit-
ing legislation.
Because of this,
different state
agencies exercise
different autho-
rities , primarily
veto authority
regarding applica-
tions for re-
quired permits.
This , when com-
bined with the
pro-development
approach Utah
seems to have
taken toward its
energy resources,
could substantial-
ly inhibit the
implementation of
the proposed
action.







WYOMING
Industrial siting
Commission Is too
new to have devel-
oped specific
policies and autho-
rity. Water /siting
issues to be de-
cided by Board of
Control of the
State Engineer's
Office. Indus-
trial Siting Cora-
mission would fol-
low the recommenda-
tions of the ^tate
Engineer. Multiplicity
of permits prevents
an integrated approach
to planning.



At present, the
newness of the
Industrial Siting
Commission has
resulted in un-
certainty regarding
its scope of
authority. Juris-
dictional ambiguities
concerning other
state agencies
exist . Furthermore ,
most proposed energy
facilities will be
built in the eastern
part of the state
which falls outside
the Colorado River
Basin. Finally, the
strict appurtenancy
doctrine in Wyoming
could substantially
restrict the trans-
ferability of a
water right .








-------
ACTION
5 . Use irriga-
tion return flow
in nonagricultur-
al areas; e.g. ,
for power plant
cooling. Modify
power plant
siting regula-
tions to en-
courage location
of power plants
near saline
water sources .










^
CO


















^
0)
3
C
•H
4-1
C
o
u
hJ
m
C/]
g
^
H
O
PI-

ARIZONA
might lead to im-
plementation of
the proposal . The
ACC , however , does
not appear willing
to obstruct the
desires of the
public utilities.





















CALIFORNIA
ly includes consid-
eration of the
availability of low
quality water in
making power plant
siting decisions.























COLORADO
policies of dif-
ferent agencies .



























NEVADA





























NEW MEXICO





























UTAH























WYOMING























\











-------
    6.   Through land use controls, prohibit (or limit) irrigated
        agriculture on lands with high natural salt content in
        soils and subsoils, and select new lands for irrigation
        having soils and subsoils that will contribute reduced
        salt loads to irrigation return flow.

        Background of the action.  An inherent conflict regarding

land use controls exists between historic property right concepts

and emerging needs for both orderly development and protection of

surface resources.  Most recent land use legislation in the states

of the study region has been mandated by federal programs requiring

planning functions for both land and water resources.

        All of the Colorado River Basin states have passed land use

legislation.  Only six of these states, however, still have such legis-

lation in effect as a 1974 referendum in Utah repealed its land use

law.

        Under the existing land use laws of the states in the study

region, numerous different agencies appear to have sufficient authority

to implement actions designed to reduce the salinity loading of the

Colorado River Basin.  Several states mandate state control of "areas

of state interest."  Such areas include environmental concern areas,

hazard areas, etc.  If specific soil types, the irrigation of which

would cause continued increases in the salinity load of the river,

should be classified as areas of state interest their use could be

regulated.

        State land use laws which prohibit new agricultural use, and

encourage the cessation of existing irrigated agriculture on lands
                                 179

-------
having a high natural salt content would decrease the amount of




salinity resulting from the irrigation of such lands.  For this




to be done in states desiring to maintain agricultural production,




land use regulations should encourage new development of agriculture




on lands having lower natural salt loads.  This would, of course,




be dependent on the availability of such lands within the states of




the study region.




        The primary problem with this type of action is that it may




not be politically feasible to implement, at least on currently




irrigated farmland.  An implementation strategy, however, which would




phase out irrigated agriculture on lands with high natural salt levels




over a multi-year period may be an acceptable means of implementing




the proposed action.  This strategy would consider irrigated agri-




culture in prohibited areas (e.g., areas where salt levels in soils




exceed specific levels) a nonconforming use.  These nonconforming




uses would be curtailed over a time period adequate in length to




allow amortization of the costs of the facilities being removed




from production.  Such a strategy may require that specific landowners




be compensated for loss of land values.
                                 180

-------
ARIZONA— Action #6




        Authority.  Land use planning authority in Arizona is divided




among several state agencies.  Initially, the Office of Environmental




Planning is required to maintain data on the implementation of the




state comprehensive land use plan  (ARS 37-163 [A]).  This land use




plan is to be developed by the Environmental Planning Commission




(ARS 37-162) which is also the clearinghouse for all state environ-




mental problems (Executive Order No. 75-2, February 14, 1975).  The




Office of Environmental Planning is charged with the responsibility




of coordinating the plan and programs of all state departments and




agencies in order to implement the state land use plan  (ARS 37-163 [A]
        The authority of the State Land Commissioner extends to include




a determination of those lands useful for grazing  (ARS 37-211[A] [2] ) and




for other agricultural purposes  (ARS 37-211 [A] [3] ).  The Commissioner




is required to classify lands for specific uses  (ARS 37-212 [B]) and may




alter existing classifications if such alterations are in the best




interests of the state (ARS 37-212 [C]).




        Finally, the state Office of Planning and Development is




authorized to conduct economic planning and research for the state




(ARS 41-501[B]).  When considered together, it would appear that there




is ample authority within existing state agencies to implement the




proposed action.




        Current status.   At present, the Office of Economic Planning




and Development is developing a coordination plan to deal with existing
                                  181

-------
 or proposed land use controls.-*-  Were the proposed action included as a


 policy goal in the development of these mechanisms,  it would appear that


 current approaches to land use control could be used to implement the


 proposal.



        However, the relatively small amounts of state  lands and


quantities of return flows may not warrant extensive state activity.


Only 30 percent of the land area falling within Arizona is under state


jurisdiction.  The remaining 70 percent is under the jurisdiction of


either the federal government or one of several Indian  tribes.  Further-


more, most of the acreage used for irrigated agriculture is irrigated


with groundwater-  These pumping procedures do not result in an

                       2
irrigation return flow.


        The relatively small amount of irrigation return flow reaching


the Colorado River makes it unlikely that land use action to restrain


irrigated agriculture would be appropriate in Arizona.  Furthermore,


the current planning process regarding land use in the state seems to


be heavily influenced by agricultural interests, who traditionally take


a "don't bother us" attitude toward land use controls.


        Potential feasibility.  In the final analysis, the minimal


quantities of irrigation return flows generated on the limited areas


of land falling under the jurisdiction of the State of Arizona would


seem to inhibit implementation of the proposal.  The aforementioned
         Interview with Dennis Davis, Office of Economic Planning

and Development, Phoenix, Arizona, October 7, 1976.

        2
         Interview with Fritz Ryan, Arizona State Land Department,

Phoenix, Arizona, October 6, 1976.
                                 182

-------
domination of the planning process by agricultural interests would

probably further limit the potential feasibility of the proposed action.

It would appear that the future feasibility of the proposal depends on

the judgment of state officials as to its need and effectiveness and

their ability to implement it as a goal of land use planning.

                                                                    Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                                         X
        Political                                     X
        Administrative                                X
                                 183

-------
CALIFORNIA—Action #6




        Authority.  Land use planning in California is decentralized




with both state and local agencies sharing responsibility.  On the




state level, the Office of Planning and Research is authorized to




prepare and maintain a comprehensive long-range plan for growth




and development (Gov. Code 65040).  This state development plan is




to include consideration of land use, agricultural production, and




environmental protection (Gov. Code 65015.4).  The Office of Planning




and Research does not, however, have any regulatory authority over




land use (Gov. Code 65035).  Because of this, it is doubtful that




this agency could successfully implement the proposed action.  It




could, however, recommend the proposal to local and regional planning




agencies which might lead to its implementation.





        Different local and regional governmental units can be desig-




nated to handle land use planning in the different areas of the




state.  The plans developed by these agencies are to include all




land the use of which may have an effect on the planning process




(Gov. Code 65300).  The general plans prepared under this authority




are to include the conservation of natural resources.  Specifically,




consideration of soil types, and plans to prevent erosion and to




protect watersheds must be contained in the plan (Gov. Code 65303




[1]).  It would appear that whatever local or regional planning




agency is designated to prepare the land use plan would have suf-




ficient authority to include the proposed action.
                                 184

-------
        District and regional planning efforts have been specifically




authorized.  Area planning is possible with the cooperation of the




different governmental units affected (Gov. Code 65600).  District




plans are to include an analysis of trends in both population and




economic growth.  This analysis should lead to recommendations on




future land uses (Gov. Code 66107).




        Soil erosion districts have also been authorized to conduct




a statewide program of runoff control (Pub. R. Code 9001).  Toward




this end, public funding has also been authorized (Pub. R. Code 2002[6]),




These soil erosion districts may also have adequate authority to




implement the proposed action.




        Current status.  Most of current land use planning activities




of relevance are occurring at local and regional levels.  These local




planning activities are monitored by the State Water Resources Con-



 trol Board (SWRCB).






         Local planning agencies, acting under the guidelines  of state




 level agencies, are developing  comprehensive  land use  plans.  At




 present, it does not  appear  that a great number of these  plans include




 control  of salinity.  Many do,  however, deal  with the  problem of soil




erosion and sediment  control.   This mechanism may be one means of




implementing the proposed action.
                                 185

-------
        Potential feasibility.  Implementation of the proposed ai-llon

in California without the development of state level policy guidelines

for local planning entitle.-) would neem to he ne.-n 1 v  ImpoMnlblp.  The

nature of local and regional differences are substantial enough for

a single planning approach to be unworkable.  The plans which have

been developed exhibit a marked degree of variability.  It is most

unlikely that a comprehensive approach to salinity control vis-a-vis

land use will develop, in the absence of a strong state policy.

        Of more fundamental concern, however, is the limited potential

of Action #6 to reduce salinity in the Colorado River.  All of

California's share of Colorado River water has been allocated and

is in use, so land use planning (unless it were done retroactively)

could have no impact on river salinity.  Even so, most of the land

in the Colorado River Basin portion of Colorado is in salt balance.

Only some 12,000 acres, which are relatively newly developed and

are being leached, contribute salt to the Colorado River.
                                                                     Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                           X
        Political                                      X
        Administrative                                                X
                                 186

-------
COLORADO--Action #6




        Authority.  Land use planning functions are divided among




numerous state level authorities in Colorado.  Primary land use plan-




ning authority vests with the State Land Use Commission which is to




develop a comprehensive land use planning program for the state




(CRS 24-65-104[l][a]).  Once natural hazard areas have been defined




by the Land Use Commission, use of such areas must be designed to




minimize impacts on public health and property (CRS 24-65.1-202[2]).




This would be of particular importance if lands high in salt content




were to be defined as constituting a natural hazard.  Natural re-




sources of state importance, when located in natural hazard areas,




must be administered by the appropriate state agency (including the




Soil Conservation Board) in conjunction with local governments




(CRS 24-65.1-202[3]).  Were lands having high salt levels classified




by local governments as areas of state interest (CRS 24-65.1-401) the




use and development of such lands could occur only under a special




permit (CRS 24-65.1501[1][a]) and must comply with guidelines




established either by the local government or by the Land Use




Commission (CRS 24-65.1-501[3]).




         Other state authority concerning land use planning is shared




 by the Division of State Planning and the Coordinator of Environmental




 Problems.   The Division of State Planning is authorized to prepare long-




 range state planning objectives (CRS 24-37-202[l][a]) and to review the




 planning efforts of all other state agencies (CRS 24-37-202[l][c]).




 The Coordinator of Environmental Problems, in the Office of the




 governor,  is to consider and make recommendations on the wise use  of






                                  187

-------
 the state's resources  (CRS  24-41-101[2][a]).   The  authority of both

 these entities  could be applied  to  the  utilization of  land use controls

 to remove highly saline soils from  irrigated  agriculture.

         Current status.  The role of  the  Land Use  Commission concerning

 the proposed action is severely  restricted by the  fact that salinity
                                              3
 is not mentioned in the enabling legislation.    Because of the political

 unpopularity of the Land Use Commission with  some  elements of the

 state's  citizenry, the Commission tends to read  its  statutory role

 quite narrowly.  As a result, those issues which are not directly

 covered  by the  enabling legislation are not usually  addressed.

         There have been informal staff discussions between the

 Land Use Commission and other state agencies,  specifically the De-

 partment of Agriculture, concerning the possibility  of a joint under-

 taking to confront the problems  of agricultural  salinity.    Un-

 fortunately, the Land Use Commission, as  it is currently structured,

 lacks the staff and support resources to  adequately  confront the  is-
                             5
 sue of agricultural salinity.

         Future  potential.  The potential  for  implementation of  the
 proposed action in Colorado is quite  limited.  State officials do not con-

 sider it likely that any substantial  new  private irrigation developments

 which are subject to state  controls,  will be  made  in Colorado.  Prospective

 federal  developments, which will be primarily for  supplemental water rather

 than new land acreage, are  subject  to rigid salinity controls.  The structure

 of state land use planning  allows substantial local  autonomy except with re-

 gard to  specific types and uses  of  lands  (natural  hazard areas, areas of

 state interest).  Lands having a high salt content,  however, are  not
        3
         Interview with Jim Oki, Land Use Commission, Denver, Colorado,
June 22, 1976.

        4Ibid.

        5Ibid.
                                  188

-------
included in the enabling legislation creating the Land Use Commission

and, without a determination of state interest which the Land Use

Commission appears hesitant to make, would appear to remain under the

land use controls of local governments.

        The scope of the enabling legislation for the Land Use Commis-

sion would also appear to inhibit the potential feasibility of the

proposal.  It appears unlikely that the legislation creating and em-

powering the Land Use Commission can be "stretched" to include salinity

resulting from agricultural activities on soils with high salt levels.

The authorization contained in the enabling legislation would be "an

unlikely entry point" for Land Use Commission involvement in the control

of  land use involving highly saline soils.

                                                                     Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                                           X
        Political                                       X
        Administrative                                  X
        6Ibid.

        7Ibid.
                                 189

-------
NEVADA—Action #6




        Authority.  Authority over land use in Nevada is divided between




the Division of State Lands and the Regional Planning Commission with




primary authority vesting with the Division as the designated land use




planning agency of the state (NRS 321.700).  The Administrator of the




Division of State Lands is authorized to identify areas of critical




environmental concern (NRS 321.720[3]), to determine the suitability




of land for agriculture (NRS 321.720[4][b]), and to prepare a study




determining the suitability of soils for different types of uses




(NRS 321.720[5]).  The Administrator, also authorized to coordinate




all state and local land use planning activities (NRS 321.720[12]),




is primarily concerned with land use planning as it applies to state-




owned lands.




        In areas of critical environmental concern, the Administrator




of the Division of State Lands can develop a specific land use plan




for private lands which establishes both minimum standards and




use criteria (NRS 321.770).  The Administrator has limited authority




to recommend such criteria for areas which have not been designated




critical environmental areas.




        The Regional Planning Commissions have the authority to develop




master plans for the protection of watersheds falling within their




respective regions (NRS 278.160[1][b]).  (However, no such agency




utilizing  this authority exists  in  Southern Nevada.)  These  land  use




plans are  to include an inventory and  classification of land use  types




and existing uses plus a determination of  the most  desirable use  of



the land  (NRS  278.160[1][e]).   It is required by  statute that land
                                 190

-------
use
    plans be in conformity with the physical limitations of the

land (NRS 278.250).  Land use planning may either preserve existing

agricultural uses or promote the conversion of agricultural land to

urban use (NRS 278.655[2][d]).

        Finally, the governor is empowered to impose a land use plan

in the absence of local action (NRS 278.645).  It would appear that

there is adequate authority to implement the proposed action.

        Current status.   Despite ample legislative authority;  there
                                                                  o
is little coordination between state,  regional and local planning.

The Division of State Lands does not control the use of private

lands unless such lands have been designated critical environmental

areas.   The effectiveness of the proposal would be seriously

inhibited by this because there are no state lands remaining in the

Colorado River Basin.

        There has been a request, however, to declare the Las Vegas

Wash a critical environmental area.  This has not been done.  Such

a determination is a mandatory prerequisite to bring such lands under

the control of the Division of State Lands.  As with several of the

states in the study region, land use controls appear to be too politically

sensitive for substantial state-level involvement.

        Potential feasibility.  Despite the fact that existing state

authority may be rendered ineffective under existing institutional

structures for political reasons, there was a recent attempt, Later aban-

doned,  to facilitate implementation of the proposed action.  The Nevada
        Q
         Interview with Bruce Arkell, State Planning Coordinator,
Carson City, Nevada, August 23, 1976.


                                 191

-------
Environmental Protection Services, part of the Division of Health, in


1976 sought authority from the legislature to develop a conservation


plan for the entire state.    The model for this study would have


been the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) planning process. ^


The TRPA process began with an analysis of both the capacity of


lands within TRPA authority and proper land management techniques. *•


If the Environmental Protection Services is someday authorized to


develop a state conservation plan along the lines of the TRPA plan-


ning process, then the possibility of implementing the proposed


action would be greatly enhanced.  Though the conservation plan

                                                       1 f\
as proposed would not be a determinative land use plan,   it could


be an important first step in the implementation of the proposal.
Potential Feasibility:
Legal
Political
Administrative
Feasible Questionable
X
X
Major
Obstacle
X
         9
          Interview with Ernest Gregory, Director, Environmental Protec-

 tion Services,  Division of Health, Carson City, Nevada,  August 23,  1976.


        10Ibid.


        UIbid.


        12Ibid.
                                192

-------
  NEW MEXICO—Action #6




          Authority.  There are numerous state agencies involved with




  land use planning in New Mexico.  With regard to state lands, the




  Commissioner of Public Lands is to determine the nature and quality of




  state lands and classify them regarding their suitability for specific




  uses (NMS 7-6-1).  Regarding private land uses, the Land Use Advisory




  Council is authorized to consider the development of a permanent land



  use plan (NMS 4-20-1[2][A][3])  and to formulate a proposed  timetable




  for its implementation (NMS 4-20-1[2][A][2]).




          Authority to develop long-range plans for the development of




  the state's resources falls with the State Planning Office (NMS 4-20-1).




  The Planning Office is directed to formulate resource development plans




  which must include both agricultural and water impacts of resource




  development (NMS 4-20-3[1]).




         Authority vests with the Environmental Improvement Board to




 enforce rules and regulations regarding environmental management




  (NMS 12-12-9[E]).  The Environmental  Improvement Agency, under the




 direction of the Environmental Improvement Board, is responsible for




 nuisance abatement within the state (NMS 12-12-10).  This could be




 especially important if saline agricultural return flows were to be




 classified as a state nuisance, although such classification is unlikely.




         Finally, the Regional Planning Commissions are empowered to




 make recommendations concerning general land use plans  (NMS 14-57-5




 [A][2]) and both current and impending land use problems  (NMS 14-




 57-5[A][5]).  It would appear that several state agencies have ample authority




to conduct land use planning, although land use control authority is more limited.
                                 193

-------
        Current status.  Despite ample legislative  authority,  there

 is  little actual land use control by the state.  The newness of  the

 administrative machinery as well as political opposition have  combined

 to  hamper the effectiveness of state level land use planning.

        The Natural Resource Conservation Commission, which is the

 administration and coordination office of the 49 Natural Resource

Conservation Districts in the state, is currently involved in a

project to utilize remote sensing technology to survey soil types

                                      13
and develop sediment control programs.     These studies, which are a

part of the 208 planning processes,  were begun in the southeastern

part of the state.   They may be expanded to cover other portions

 X  T-        14
of the state.

        Potential feasibility.   The outcome of the Natural Resources

Conservation Commission studies may determine the potential feasibility

of the proposed action.   If the sediment control programs developed

include land use controls,  then implementation of the proposal would

be greatly facilitated.

        At present,  the newness of the land use system has rendered

it less effective than it might become in future years.   As the

system evolves,  and jurisdictional lines are established, the potential

for implementing the proposal would be enhanced.   The issue of land

use, and the role of state  government in determining appropriate
         Interview with Margaret Thibodeau, Administrator, New Mexico
Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
September 10, 1976.

       14Ibid.

                                 194

-------
uses for the state's resources, is currently of substantial importance

in New Mexico because of the state's energy resources.  This may be

a motivating factor which will encourage delineation of appropriate

land use planning authority.  Such a delineation may also facilitate

implementation of the proposed action.
                                                                Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                                  X
        Administrative                             X
                                 195

-------
  UTAH—Action #6

          Authority.  The Utah Land Use Act, passed in 1974, was repealed

  by public referendum in 1975.  Because of this repeal, there is no

  state level land use planning agency in Utah.

          The authority that does exist over land use and land use plan-

  ning is based at the county level.  County Planning Commissions may

  develop a master plan for the county and may adopt zoning regulations

  for unincorporated land in the county (UCA 17-27-9).   The master plan

  as developed may consider agricultural land use efficiency and the

  most economical use of county land (UCA 17-27-5).   The County Planning

  Commission may also propose regulations to foster land "development

  and utilization" and to encourage agricultural production (UCA 17-27-13),

        Current status.  Because of the lack of authority resulting

from the repeal of the Utah Land Use Act, the State  has no

authority in the area of privately owned land use.  It  is doubt-

ful whether local efforts can reflect the need for a comprehensive

scheme essential to the implementation of the proposed action.

        The administrators of the different state agencies comprise

a State Planning Advisory Committee which has focused its efforts on

three areas:  (1) human services; (2) economic and physical development;

(3) regulatory groups.    The Environmental Coordinating Committee of

the Planning Advisory Committee has discussed different aspects

of salinity control.  There is also a Policy Coordination Unit,
       15 Interview with Jack Ockey, State Planning Coordinator's Office,
Salt Lake City, Utah, December 16, 1976  (telephone).
                                  196

-------
primarily under the direction of the Economic and Physical Development

subdivision of the Planning Advisory Committee, which will formulate

specific policy responses.

        The functioning of the State Planning Advisory Committee is

still in an embryonic stage.  The Committee plans to seek a revision

of its authority from the next session of the legislature.

        Potential feasibility.  Because of the absence of state level

land use planning programs, all land use planning activities occur at

the discretion of county officials.  This type of policy is not

conducive to implementation of the proposal.

        Whether the proposed action could be implemented through the

State Planning Advisory Committee remains to be seen.  If the autho-

rity of the Committee is expanded in an upcoming legislative session, and the

expansion includes the authority to implement the proposed action,

then the potential feasibility of the proposal could be substantially

enhanced.  Under existing procedures, however, it is unlikely that the

prop'osaj. can be implemented on anything other than a piecemeal, localized

basis.
                                                                Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                                     X
        Political                                                 X
        Administrative                                            X
          ibid.

       17 Ibid.
                                  197

-------
WYOMING—Action #6




        Authority.  Authority over the use of  land  in Wyoming is




divided among numerous state agencies.   Initially,  the Wyoming Con-




servation and Land Use Study Commission  is authorized to recommend




future land use controls  (WS 9-160.46[ii]) and necessary state legis-




lation to conform to national requirements concerning land use (WS




9-160.46[vi]).




        General authority for control over the physical and economic




resources of  the state is vested with the Department of Economic




Planning and  Development  (DEPAD)  (WS  9-160.19).  DEPAD has the




authority to  conduct investigations regarding  the resources of the




state  (WS 9-160.29[a][iii]) which may include  private activities




which have an effect on the public interest  (WS 9-160.29[a][iv]).




DEPAD may assist  in the  development  of  specific projects by providing




legislatively authorized  financial  assistance  (WS  9-160.29[b][iii])




and has  the  authority  to  acquire property through  the exercise of




eminent  domain  authority  and  other means (WS 9-160.29[b]rix]).   DEPAD




has general  authority  to  exercise all necessary powers  to  carry  out




the purposes  of the act.




        The Division of Industrial Development of DEPAD has the




authority to  study  soil types,  different soil  type  potentials and




related subjects  (WS 9-160.32[b]).  Finally, the State Planning




Coordinator's Office is to coordinate the activities of all state




agencies both within state government and with the  federal government




(WS  9-144.3).
                                 198

-------
          Current status.   There is a general feeling in DEPAD that


 salinity in the Green River (the only portion of the Colorado River


 Basin falling within Wyoming)  is not the result of irrigated agri-


 culture.  Much of the Green River Basin is not irrigated, although


 there is appreciable irrigation on Black's Fork River,  tributary to


 the Green, and some on the Little Snake River, tributary to the Yampa.


 There are proposals,  however,  to increase that amount of land irrigated


 in the Green River Basin  through the use of sprinkler irrigation.   This


 may encourage land use planning in the area because of  the effects of


 changes in historic land  uses.


         The Conservation and Land Use Study Commission does not have


 regulatory authority.    Its primary function  is to advise local com-


 munities .  As was apparent in several other states, Wyoming is using a


 "bottom up" approach to planning with local and county officials having

                                               19
 the greatest authority over land use planning.


         Potential feasibility.  Any system which allows local and


 county  officials to determine land use policies, in the absence .of


 strong  state leadership, will have difficulty  implementing the proposed


 action.  The result of such implementation will be piecemeal and local-


 ized in  effect.  The limited amounts of salinity contributed to the


 Colorado River from the Green River Basin, however, obviate the .need


 for strong land use controls.
        18
          Interview with Dr. James Ahl, Director, State Land Use Com-

mission, Cheyenne, Wyoming, July 1, 1976.


        19T, . .
          Ibid.
                                199

-------
        Local planning has been hindered by a conflict between city and

                                               20
county officials in a specific geographic area.    Though this may  be

corrected by application of the Joint Powers Act adopted in 1975,  it

is still too early to determine the effectiveness of the measure.   Even

if the salinity load of the Green River warranted stringent land use

controls (which it does not appear to do), the newness of the land  use

system could make an effective response by state, county and local

                         21
officials very difficult.
                                                                Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                       X
        Political                                                 X
        Administrative                                            X
        20ibid.

        21Ibid.
                                  200

-------
ACTION
6 . Through land
use controls ,
prohibit (or
limit) irrigated
agriculture on
lands with high
natural salt
content in soils
and subsoils,
and select new
lands for irri-
gation , having
soils and sub-
soils that will
contribute
reduced salt
loads to irriga-
tion return flow.






ro
o
i— <























































*
X
5:

<

























ARIZONA
37-162 Environmen-
tal Planning Com-
mission to prepare
a state land use
plan. 37-163CA)
Office of Environ-
mental Planning
shall keep data on
the comprehensive
.and use plan.
(13) (2) Office
will coordinate
the plans and
programs of all
state departments ,
agencies and in-
strumentalities .
CALIFORNIA
Gov. Code 16080
Environmental
Quality Study
Council to (6)
identify major en-
vironmental prob-
lems and (d) iden-
tify problems of
existing efforts.
Gov. Code 65040
Office of Planning
and Research to
prepare and main-
tain comprehens ive
long-range plans
for growth and
development . Gov.
Executive Order Code 65015,4 State
No. 75-2 (Feb. 14,
1975) makes the
commission the
clearinghouse for
Arizona environ-
mental problems .
37-211 (A) State
Land Commissioner
to investigate
lands to determine
(2) usefulness for
grazing and (3)
lands susceptible
for agriculture.
37-212 (B) State
Land Commissioner
to classify lands
(1) for agricul-
tural purposes .
(C) may reclassify
land in best in-
terest of the
state. 41-501(B)
Office of Planning
and Development to
do economic plan-
ning and research.

development plan
to include land
use, environmental
factors and agri-
culture. Gov.
Code 65035 Office
of Planning and
Research does not
have regulatory
control over land
use. Gov. Code
65300 Planning
agency to include
land which may af-
fect the planning
process . Gov.
Code 65303(1)
General plan to
include conserva-
tion of natural
resources, includ-
ing soils, and alsc
(5) prevention of
erosion and (6)
protection of
watersheds . Gov.
Code 65600 Area
planning possible
Nonspecific |wlth cooperation of








governmental units.
Gov. Code 66107
District plan to
(c) include recom-
mendations on land
use and trends in
population and
COLORADO
24-37-202(1) Divi-
sion of State
Planning to (a)
>repare long-range
state objectives
and (c) review the
planning efforts
of state agencies .
24-41-101 (2) (a)
Coordinator of
environmental
'roblems to con-
sider and make
recommendat ions on
the wise use of
Land resources.
24-65-104 (l)(a)
State Land Use
Commission to
develop a land use
planning program.
24-65.1-202 (2)
Land Use Commis-
sion may adminis-
ter natural hazard
areas . All devel-
opments must be
designed to mini-
mize impacts on
public health and
Dropertv.
24-65.1-202 (3)
Once determined,
natural resources
of state impor-
tance to be ad-
ministered by
state agency (in-
cluding Soil Con-
servation Board)
in conj unction
with local govern-
ment. 24-65.1-401
Local governments
may determine
areas of state
interest. 24-65.
1-501(1) (a) Person
conducting activi-
ty in area of
state interest
must obtain a per-
mit, (3) develop-
ment must then
(continued) '(continued)
NEVADA
278.160 (l)(b)
Master plan devel-
oped by Regional
banning Commis-
sions to protect
erosion of water-
shed. 278.645
Governor may
impose land use
ilan in the ab-
sence of local
action. 278.160
(l)(e) Land use
plan to include
inventory and
classification of
land types and
uses, plus most
desirable use .
278.655 (2)(d)
Physical planning
to preserve farm
land or promote
change of agri-
cultural land to
urban land.
278.250 Land use
Dlans to be in
character with the
3hysical limita-
tions of the land.
321.700 Division
of State Lands to
se land use plan-
ning agency.
321.720 Adminis-
trator of Division
of State Lands to
(3) identify areas
of critical envi-
ronmental concern
and (4)(b) deter-
mine suitability
of land for agri-
culture (b) also
(5) prepare suit-
ability of soil
type study and
(12) coordinate
all state and
local programs .
321.770 In areas
of critical envi-
ronmental concern,
(continued)
NEW MEXICO
4-20-1 (2) (A) Land
Use Advisory
Council to (2)
formulate time-
table to implement
land use plan and
(3) consider de-
veloping a perma-
nent land use plan.
4-20-2 State Plan-
ning Office to
develop long-range
plans for the De-
velopment of the
state resources .
4-20-3 (1) Plan-
ning Office to
develop resource
development plans ,
including agri-
culture, and in-
dicate benefits
from agriculture,
including water.
UTAH
Utah Land Use Act,
Laws 1974, ch. 30
(63.28-1) was re-
pealed by public
referendum. 17-
27-5 County mas-
ter plan may
consider agricul-
tural land effi-
cient and econom-
ic use of land.
17-27-9 County
Planning Commis-
sion may adopt
zoning regulations
for unincorporated
land. 17-27-13
Regulations to
foster land "de-
velopment and
utilization and
foster state ' s
agriculture.

7-6-1 Commissioner .General
of Public Lands to
maintain data on
nature and quality
of state lands .
May classify lands
regarding minerals
contained.
12-12-9 (E) Envi-
ronmental Improve-
ment Board to en-
force rules and
regulations regard-
ing environmental
management . 12-
12-10 Environment-
al Improvement
Agency to be re-
sponsible for
nuisance abatement.
14-57-5 Regional
Planning Commis-
sions (A) (2) to
recommend general
Land use plan and
(5) recommenda-
tions concerning
current and im-
pending problems.






























Nonspecific \
WYOMING
9-144.3 State Plan-
ning Coordinator to
coordinate such
activities of
all state agen-
cies and with
the federal
government .
9-160.19 Dept.
of Economic
Planning and
Development to
plan the devel-
opment of the
physical and
economic re-
sources of the
state. (DEPAD)
9-160.29 DEPAD
may make inves-
tigations re.
the resources
of the state (a)
(iii) which may
include private
works affecting
the public inter-
est and (a) (iv) may
assist such proj-
ects financially,
(b)(iii) may
acquire property
3y eminent domain
and other means.
(6) (ix) Other powers
needed to carry
out the act.
9-160.32 Direc-
tor of Division
of Industrial
Development
(DEPAD) to (b)
study soil types,
potentials and
uses (and related
subjects) .
9-160.46 Wyoming
Conservation and
..and Use Study
Commission to
'ii) recommend
:uture land use
_ontrols and
.vi) recommend
continued)

-------
ACTION
6. Through land
use controls ,
prohibit (or
limit) irrigated
agriculture on
lands with high
natural salt
content in soils
and subsoils,
and select new
lands for irri-
gation, having
soils and sub-
soils that will
contribute
reduced salt
loads to irriga-
tion return flow.






NJ
o
NJ































^
p
O
^
w
X
o
E

<












p
<
cn
2
[i
04
a;
0












IX
E-i

£
t£

tn
5
E-
S
fc

P-

ARIZONA











The Office of
Economic Planning
and Development
is developing
planning coordi-
nation regarding
land use plans.
However, agri-
cultural interests
may cause problems
concerning control
of nonpoint
pollution sources.











Apparent dominance
of agricultural
interests in the
planning process
could inhibit im-
plementation of
the proposal . The
land use planning
process being de-
veloped by the
Office of Economic
Planning and De-
velopment could
allow for imple-
mentation of the
proposed action
depending on its
final form. The
(continued)
CALIFORNIA
economic growth.
Pub. R. 9001 State-
wide program to
control runoff and
soil erosion dis-
tricts author ized .
Pub. R. 2002 (6)
'ublic funds for
implementing run-
off control .
Nonspecific
State Water Re-
sources Control
Board (SWRCB) —
Division of
Planning and Re-
search — has bulk
of activity occur-
ring at local and
regional levels
with SWRCB approv-
al. Further,
developing fresh
water plan will
include areas of
biological
importance.








The potential
feasibility of the
proposed action is
severely limited
by the regional
nature of land use
planning in Cali-
fornia.


COLORADO
comply with guide-
lines established
jy the local
government or the
Land Use Commis-
sion .

Nonspecific



jand Use Commis-
sion ' s role may
3e limited be-
cause salinity not
mentioned in
legislation creat-
ing land use
commission. There
is staff discus-
sion of an agri-
cultural-land use
link. Land Use
Commission doesn't
iave staff or re-
sources to handle
issues of agricul-
tural salinity.







The limited autho-
rity granted the
Land Use Commis-
sion under its en-
abling legislation
could restrict the
feasibility of the
proposal . Politi-
cal pressures may
ilso render the
lLand Use Commis-
sion incapable of
involvement in is-
sues which are not
Covered in the le-



(continued)
gislation. The
lack of staff and
support resources
(continued)
NEVADA
administrator can
determine a land
use plan with
criteria and
standards .

Nonspecific




State Planning
Coordinator sees
little real
coordination of
state , regional
and local plan-
ning. State
Land and Local
Jse Planning does
not administer
lands in Colorado
[liver Basin unless
owned by another
state agency (are
none) . Land Use
too politically
sensitive to be
effective — there
is a request ,
tiowever, to
declare the Las
Vegas Wash a
critical envir-
onmental area.
Land use issues
nay be too polti-
cally sensitive to
allow extensive
state-level in-
volvement . Poten-
tial feasibility
cannot adequately
DC determined at
present because
the proposed state
conservation plan
aas not yet been
approved by the le-
gislature. This
plan, if approved ,
NEW MEXICO











The Natural
Resources Conser-
vation Commission
is using Technolo-
gy Application
Center to use
satellites to sur-
vey soil types and,
in coordination
with 208 conmittee,
to develop sediment
source control pro-
gram. The newness
of and opposition
to land use plan-
ning procedures
have rendered
existing authority
relatively inef-
fective.




The newness of
land use planning
programs and poli-
tical opposition
to land use con-
trols have com-
bined to reduce
the effectiveness
of existing insti-
tutions . Natural
Resources Conser-
vation Commission
studies of soil
types and sedi-
ment control meth-
ods , as well as
would be the most the current empha-
readily available
sis on state
UTAH











A 1974 public
referendum re-
pealed the Utah
Land Use law.
State Land Board
retained no
authority in this
area. Soil
Conservation
Service feels
that salinity
problem is pri-
marily natural
and industrial,
not agricultural .









Repeal of the
WYOMING
state legisla-
tion to conform
to national
legislation.

Nonspecific





Feeling in the
Department of
Economic Plan-
ning and Develop-
ment is that irri-
gated agriculture
not responsible
for salinity on
the Green River.
LUC does not
have any regu-
lation function.
Local communities
doing land use
planning —
"bottom up"
approach .







Salinity load-
state land use ling from irrigated
act has left im-
plementation of
the proposal at
the discretion of
local and county
officials . The
State Planning
Advisory Commit-
tee is still at
an embryonic
stage in its de-
velopment . If it
granted addition-
al authority by
agriculture in the
Green River sub-
basin (the Wyoming
portion) of the
Colorado River
Basin is extreme-
ly limited. De-
spite the fact
that the land use
planning system in
Wyoming is very
new and locally
oriented, it is
doubtful whether
an upcoming ses- ; strict land use
sion of the state j controls would
(continued) (continued) '(continued) ' (continued)

-------
ACTION
6. Through land
use controls,
prohibit (or
limit) irrigated
agriculture on
lands with high
natural salt
content in soils
and subsoils,
and select new
lands for irri-
gation, having
soils and sub-
soils that will
contribute re-
duced salt loads
to irrigation
return flow.


ro
o
LO







^
4-1
f-
O
CJ

£
J
—1
pq
h-i
CO
<
M

hJ
<•
E_l
Z,
W
H
Q
Pj






ARIZONA
relative weight of
agricultural in-
terests, however ,
may limit the ef-
fectiveness of
developing any
land use planning
procedures .















CALIFORNIA
Under the current
structure, it is
unlikely that loc-
a 1 and r e g iona 1
political sub-
divisions would
burden themselves
with the types of
land use controls
which the propos-
al would require
unless there were
strong state in-
centives to en-
courage such
controls, especial
ly since the im-
pact on salinity
would be minimal.




I
|
COLORADO
may also inhibit
implementation of
the proposal.












-









NEVADA
vehicle for im-
plementation of
the proposed
action.





















NEW MEXICO
energy development ,
could result in a
stronger emphasis
on state level
land use controls .
At present, howev-
er, the potential
feasibility of the
proposed action is
limited.













UTAH
legislature,
then the pro-
posed action
might be cap-
able of imple-
mentation. At
present, however
implementation
could, at best,
be limited to
piecemeal, lo-
calized efforts .













WYOMING
reduce the salinity
loading charac-
teristics of the
Green River because
of the limited
amount of irri-
gated acreage
involved . If
irrigation ex-
pands, however,
and attention
focuses on the
need to control
land use in the
developing area,
then the feasibility
of implementing
the proposal could be
substantially
increased.






-------
   7.   Through state economic incentives, promote conversion
       of land used for irrigated agriculture to other uses
       when highly saline return flows cannot be prevented,
       controlled or treated and encourage the modification
       of vegetation on rangeland (e.g., convert sagebrush
       to grassland) to reduce natural salinity from storm
       runoff.

       Background of the action.  Action #7 proposes the use of

state economic incentives to stimulate changes in land use -to reduce

salinity.  The proposed action contrasts with Action #6,  which

proposes to reach the same goals through the use of governmental

sanctions:  land use restrictions, zoning prohibitions, and similar

regulatory actions.

       Three forms of economic incentive have been identified,

although there probably are others that could be used:

       (a) Direct economic incentives, such as reductions in

           state income taxes or local property tax exemptions

           to landowners who voluntarily change land uses from

           those causing a high degree of salinity to other uses.

           A more direct incentive,  of course, is an offer to

           purchase land for conversion to a new use causing less

           salinity.  While it is conceivable that a state govern-

           ment might itself purchase land, it is more likely to

           act as a catalyst to promote sales of land to  private

           interests such as industry or energy developers.  This

           could be done in connection with a state business or

           industrial development agency which normally encourages

           and assists industrial firms to locate in the  state.
                                204

-------
        (b) A  state grant or loan fund  to landowners  to  encourage




           changes in land use, e.g.,  from  irrigated agriculture




           to less intensive agriculture (perhaps  dryland  farming




           or grazing), or to persons  purchasing irrigated land




           for conversion to a new use (such as residential develop-




           ment, industrial use, etc.).




        (c) An incentive payment to landowners  to encourage modifi-




           cation of vegetation that would  reduce  natural  saline




           runoff.  Mechanical uprooting or chemical treatment  of




           sagebrush, followed by planting  of  native grasses, would




           be rewarded by a cash payment or a  tax  reduction.




        Because of the unpopularity of  legal sanctions by government,




 particularly  among farmers and ranchers whose  freedom to use their land




 is  threatened,  the use of economic incentives  appears to offer  a far




 more acceptable way to bring about salinity reductions.  Questions of




 authority to  encroach on property rights are bypassed,  and  actions are




 taken voluntarily, with the economic costs  shared  among all state




 residents.




        Nevertheless, there are evident concerns over  the role of  the




 state in bringing about salinity reduction  through actions which




 negatively affect the agricultural sector,   and the processing,  trans-




 portation and  supply sectors dependent on them.




        There also  is  likely  to  be  state hesitation to fully fund a




grant or incentive  payment  program  when analogous  federal programs




 (e.g.,  ASCS,  RC&D)  pay 50 to  75  percent of  the  cost.   Before doing so,
                                205

-------
the Colorado River Basin states are likely to explore, through their




Congressional delegations, the possibility of a federally supported




program.
                                 206

-------
 ARIZONA—Action #7


       Authority.   No specific authority exists in Arizona statutes

for state economic incentives to promote changes in land use.   State

authority to prepare and monitor a comprehensive land use plan is

discussed under Action #6.

        Current status.   The  Arizona Water  Commission has plans which

 incorporate the  retirement of  agricultural land.  The  purpose is not

 to reduce  salinity but  to accommodate municipal and industrial water

 demand.  No activity exists  to encourage vegetation modification.

        Potential feasibility.  The relatively  small quantitites of

 irrigation return  flows  generated on private lands in  Arizona make

 implementation of  the action unlikely.  However,  it may be done as a

 by-product of Arizona Water  Commission actions to reallocate irrigation

 water to M&I uses.  The  strong influence of agricultural interests in

 Arizona make this  action more  likely than  the  use of sanctions  (Action

 #6).
                                                                   Major
         Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
         Legal                                        X
         Political                            X
         Administrative                                        X
                                    207

-------
 CALIFORNIA—AC tion #7





        Authority.  Little specific authority exists in California




 statutes for state economic incentives to promote changes in land use.




 Conceivably such actions could be carried out under statutory authority




 to prevent erosion and protect watersheds (Gov. Code 65303[5], [6])




 and to aid and encourage soil conservation activities (PRC 9063) .



        Current status.   There is no  current activity involving economic




 incentives to promote  land use changes affecting  salinity.




        Potential  feasibility.  Implementation of  land use controls




 (Action #6) is believed  to be dependent on the willingness of state




 officials to  require local planning agencies to do so.   Economic




 incentives are in many ways more  politically acceptable  than sanctions,




 and they possibly may be implemented in preference to  administrative




 controls.   However, the lack of  a strong state planning  policy concerning




 salinity,  caused in part by substantially different conditions existing




 among regions of the state,  makes implementation of this action relatively




 unlikely in California.




        Because only about 12,000 acres of the Palo Verde Valley now




contribute salt to the river and these are approaching salt balance,




and no further Colorado River water is available for allocation to




new lands, there is little or no potential for salt reduction.
                                  208

-------
COLORADO—Action #7

       Authority.  Colorado statutes give no authority for the state to

use economic incentives to promote changes in land q,,se, although land

use planning is authorized as discussed in Action #6.

       Current status.  Colorado has no program underway or planned

to use economic incentives to promote changes in land use to reduce

salinity.  State policy gives high priority to the preservation of

agricultural land, and a recent agreement between Colorado and the

Secretary of the Interior gives Colorado some power to prohibit the

transfer of water from irrigated land to energy development.

        Potential  feasibility.   Preservation  of agricultural land  is

 likely  to  continue  to be  a  goal of  state  government  policy in  Colorado,

 but  substantial  energy development  is  anticipated  in the  Colorado  River

 Basin,  and industrial development outside  the  front  range also is  a

 state goal.   Conversion of  some irrigated  agricultural land which

 contributes  heavily  to salinity might  be  encouraged  in siting  of

 industrial and energy developments.  However,  it is  unlikely  that  the

 state would  finance  economic  incentives to reduce  salinity in  the

 Colorado River Basin when even  higher  salinity levels in  the Arkansas

 River are  considered to be  tolerable.
                                                                 Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable     Obstacle
        Legal                                            X
        Political                                           X
        Administrative                                      X
                                209

-------
 NEVADA—Action #7


        Authority.  Although no specific Nevada statutes authorize state

 economic incentives to promote land use changes, there is considerable

 authority to develop land use plans to preserve watersheds and to promote

 the conversion of agricultural land to urban use (see Action #6).

        Current status.   No state activity exists concerning land

 use changes to reduce salinity.

        Potential feasibility.  Although speculative, it appears

possible that a state program encouraging land use changes, perhaps

using tax incentives to do so, could be started in Nevada to help

implement a conservation plan.  However, even without a specific

program, agricultural use in the Colorado River Basin is forecast

to decline as demand for municipal and industrial water increases

and land economics cause a conversion from agriculture to other

uses.

                                                                  Major
         Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
         Legal                                 X
         Political                             X
         Administrative	                  X
                                     210

-------
NEW MEXICO—Action #7

       Authority.  There is substantial authority, as described In

Action #6, for land use planning in New Mexico.  Also NMSA 75-34-28

tstablishes a state grant and loan fund and authorizes loans to community

 ditch organizations  and to  irrigation and conservancy districts  for

 construction  and rehabilitation of  irrigation systems and  for  the  im-

 provement of  irrigated land.   No specific authority  exists,  however,

 for  grants or loans  to promote land  use  conversion,  or for vegetation

 modification.

       Current status.  No  state economic  incentives  are currently used

 to promote  land  use conversion.  However,  in  the southern  part of New

Mexico, irrigation districts are buying lands  to protect the more

 productive  lands  from  intrusion of saline  groundwaters.  This action

 is not deemed necessary in  the  Colorado River  Basin.

       Potential  feasibility.   As Action  #6 discusses, the state role

 in controlling or influencing land use is  not  yet clearly  established.

 If New Mexico determines that changes in  land  use are necessary to

control salinity  (which does not now seem  likely), it may be possible

to encourage suck changes by establishing  another state grant and loan

fund.  If salinity control  measures also  coincide with erosion control

measures  (as on heavily grazed  pasture land),  there  is a reasonable

possibility that  corrective action may be  taken under  the  existing

grant and loan program.  An example could  be a program of  replacing

sagebrush with native  grasses, with state  cost sharing.
                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                      X
        Political                                                  x
        Administrative                             X
                                211

-------
UTAH—Action #7

       Authority.  No land use statute now exists in Utah, and all land

use planning activities are conducted at the county level.  A state re-

volving fund, authorized by UCA 73-10-1, exists to construct projects

to promote efficiency of water use.  UCA 73-10-23 assigns administrative

responsibility for the fund to the Division of Water Resources.

        Current  status.   The  Utah  Division  of  Water  Resources  is

 encouraging  industry to  purchase  water  rights of marginal agricultural

 lands.   This activity has  the effect  of  reducing salinity as  well as

 improving  the economic return from limited water resources.   Aside

 from state encouragement,  however,  there are  no state  economic in-

 centives promoting such  conversions.

        Potential  feasibility.  In the absence  of state land use controls,

 and their  evident unpopularity, Utah is  probably doing nearly as much

 as it can  to promote  conversion of  land  uses  through encouraging

 industrial purchases  of marginal  agricultural  land and water rights.

 Should more incentive appear  necessary,  the Division of Water Resources

 could possibly utilize its revolving fund to help finance  land purchases

 for resale to industrial and  energy developers, but no specific authority

to do so is now apparent.
                                                                   Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                                             X
        Political                                         X
        Administrative                               X
                                212

-------
WYOMING—Action #7

         Authority.  Wyoming Statute 9-160.29[b] authorizes the Department

of Economic Planning and Development (DEPAD) to recommend that the legis-

lature provide financial assistance for the development of specific projects

and to acquire property through purchase or exercise of eminent domain.

(See Action No. #6 for more details.)  Normally, however, a project re-

payment plan is expected before appropriation is made, so conversion from

irrigation to a profitable land use would be desirable.

        Current status.  Although sufficient authority exists for DEPAD

 to take the recommended action, DEPAD is not doing so because of a con-

 viction that salinity in the Green River (Wyoming's tributary of the

 Colorado) is not caused by irrigated agriculture.

        Potential feasibility.  If it became evident that Wyoming could

 significantly reduce salinity through land use changes, the use of

 economic incentives is the only feasible approach.  State sanctions

 would be extremely unpopular.  Lacking sufficient evidence of salinity

 caused by irrigated agriculture, DEPAD will not take action to convert

 saline lands to nonagricultural use.   A proposal  to reduce salinity

 of natural runoff by replacing rangeland sagebrush with grasses would

 seem to lend itself to state economic incentives.  However, most land

 in western Wyoming is in federal ownership,  so a state economic incentive

 would be of limited effectiveness.
                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                           X
        Political                                          X
        Administrative                        X
         Interview with Larry J.  Bourret,  Commissioner of Agriculture
Cheyenne,  June  30,  1976.

                                 213

-------
ACTION
7 . Through state
economic incen-
tives , promote
conversion of
land used for ir-
rigated agricul-
ture to other
uses when
highly saline
return flows can-
not be prevented,
controlled, or
treated and en-
courage the
modification of
vegetation on
rangeland (e . 2 ,
convert sagebrush
to grassland) to
reduce natural
salinity from
storm runoff:
(a) Promote con-
version of land
to nonagricultur-
al uses .
(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
(c) Encourage
vegetation
modification.



























H
3
o
PS
E-t



















ARIZONA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses . No specific
statutory author-
ity. See Action
#6.

Nonspecific





(b) Establish
loan fund. No
statutory
authority.












(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
statutory autho-
rity.




CALIFORNIA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses . No specific
statutory author-
ity. See Action
#6.

Nonspecific





(b) Establish
loan fund. No
statutory autho-
rity. PRC 9063
directs Soil Con-
servation Commis-
sion to "aid and
encourage but not
conduct , soil con-
servation
activities .






(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. Gov. Code
65303(5), (6)
General plan to
prevent erosion
and protect water-
sheds.
General
COLORADO
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses . No specific
statutory author-
ity. See Action
46.

Nonspecific





(b) Establish
loan fund.
CRS 35-70-103
authorizes soil
conservation
board to give
grants and loans
to districts .
(Note: current
annual funding
is only $89,000,
to be used for
administrative
expenses of 83
districts . )

General
(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
statutory
authority.




NEVADA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses. NO specific
statutory author-
ity. See Action
#6.

Nonspecific





(b) Establish
loan fund.
No statutory
authority .












(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. NRS 548.
355 Conservation
districts have
authority to
regulate vegeta-
tion .
Specific
NEW MEXICO
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses. This action
is being imple-
men ted by some
irrigation dis-
tricts under gen-
eral authority of
NMSA 75-22-12. No
specific statutory
authority . See
Action #6.
Nonspecific
(b) Establish
loan fund.
NMSA 75-34-28
authorizes State
Engineer to make
loans to community
ditch organiza-
and water conser-
vation districts
for constructing,
imoreving and re-
habilitating irri-
gation svs terns.


Specific
(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
statutory
authority.




UTAH
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses. No specific
statutory author-
ity. See Action
#6.

Nonspecific





(b) Establish
1 ->^n f und .
UCA 73-10-1
creates revolving
fund to construct
projects to pro-
mote efficiency of
is administered b],
Board of Water Re-
sources , under
UCA 73-10-23.

Specific



(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
statutory
authority.




WYOMING
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses. No specific
statutory authority.
See Action #6.

Nonspecific






(b) Establish
loan fund.
WSA 41-1.42
authorizes state
financing (loans)
for the construc-
tion of water
conservation
projects to
abate pollution
and promote
beneficial use
ci water.

Sped fi c


(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. WSA 9-853
(IX) Land Use
Commission can
identify areas of
state concern.

Nonspecific

-------
ACTION
7. Through state
economic incen-
tives, promote
conversion of
land used for ir-
rigated agricul-
ture to other
.
highly saline
return flows can-
not be prevented,
controlled, or
treated and en-
courage the
modification of
vegetation on
rangeland (e.g. ,
convert sagebrush
to grassland) to
reduce natural
salinity from
storm runoff:
(a) Promote con-
version of land
i to nonagricultur-
nal uses.
(b) Establish -
state grant or
loan fund.
(c) Encourage
vegetation
modification.



































^
<
00
E-
ft
p:
C

















ARIZONA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses . Plans under
CALIFORNIA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses . No activi-
he auspices of jties in this area
he Arizona Water
ommission incor-
. .1 .
nent of agricul-
ural land and the
usage of water
saved" for in-
lustrial and
municipal.

(b) Establish
state grant or
.oan fund . No
;rant or loan
:und; no tax
incentive.
















(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
activity on
state or
private land.


by water resources
officials.








(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund. No
grant or loan
fund ; no tax in-
centive. ASCS
program funds
about 40-50% of
requests .












L_
(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
activity on
state or
private land.

COLORADO
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses . No programs
in this area by
water resources
officials.








(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund . No
grant or loan
fund ; no tax in-
centive . Legis-
lature has in
1976 appropriated
$89,000 for ad-
ministrative
expenses of
state's 83 soil
conservation
districts.








(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
activity on
state or
private land.

t
NEVADA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses. See Action
//6. Agricul-
ture return flows
are negligible.
. , , ,
in Nevada portion
of Colorado Basin
is forecast to de-
cline because of
municipal and
industrial demand
NEW MEXICO
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses . Being done in
southern part of
state through ir-
rigation districts
., , ,
sary on Colorado
as most land is
productive and
not salinity
producing.

for water and land economics.
(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund . There
is serious con-
sideration to giv-
ing farmers a tax
break if they line
ditches and make
water saving im-
provements . This
would be a reduc-
tion in ad valorem
taxes on their
farms . State
legislature is
generally opposed
to grant programs .





(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
activity on
state or
private land .


(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund . N .M.
Interstate Streams
Commission has a
grant and loan
program to supple-
ment ASCS, RC&D
and Four Corners
funds . State
grant program
(funded at
$150,000/yr) can
provide up to 15%
grant and can
loan money at
2-1/2% interest to
community ditch
organizations to
pay balance of
cost. Loan fund is
nearly $2 million.
(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. No
activity on
state or
private land.


UTAH
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricultural
uses. This is
being done by the
Division of Water
Resources . Prac-
.. -1 
-------
ACTION
7. Through state
economic incent-
tives , promote
conversion of
land used for ir-
rigated agricul-
ture to other
uses when
highly saline
return flows can-
not be prevented,
controlled , or
treated and en-
courage the
modification of
vegetation on
rangeland (e.g. ,
convert sagebrush
to grassland) to
reduce natural
salinity from
storm runoff:
(a) Promote con-
version of land
to nonagricul tur-
al uses.
(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
(c) Encourage
vegetation
modification.






































H
,-J
CO
CO
td

<
H
Ed
O
^














ARIZONA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
lonagricul tural
ises . Underway as
^ source of M&I
^ater . Question-
able if it can be
accelerated as a
alinity control
neasure.




(b) Establish
state grant or
.oan fund.
3ues tionable
if fund could
>e established
"or this purpose.
















(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. Not
likely due to
limited amount of
saline runoff
entering Colorado
River.


CALIFORNIA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagri cultural
uses . Lack of
uniform state-
wide policy on
salinity make
action relatively
unlikely.





(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
Questionable
if fund could
be established
for this purpose.
















(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. Not
likely due to
statewide varia-
tions in salinity
problem.



COLORADO
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricul tural
uses . Present
state policy is
contrary to this
action. Salinity
levels are higher
in Arkansas River
Basin , thus state
action in CRB is
unlikely .


(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
Doubtful that
fund could be
established for
this purpose.
















(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. Question-
able although
saline runoff is
believed signifi-
cant in CRB. May
be opposition from
wildlife interests.

NEVADA
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
:ionagricul tural
uses. Economics of
water transfer to
M&I uses are re-
ducine; land in
Irrigation.






(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
Questionable .
State legislature
is generally
opposed to grant
programs .















(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. Possible
under tax incen-
tive program.





NEW MEXICO
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricul tural
uses . Need to con-
vert agricultural
land as a salinity
control measure Is
not clear. If it
becomes so, action
could be taken
under state grant
and loan program .


(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund. N.M.
Interstate Streams
Commission has a
grant and loan
program to supple-
ment ASCS, RC&D
and Four Corners
funds . The fund
could possibly be
used to assist
irrigation dis-
tricts to buy mar-
ginal agricultural
land for resale,
to reallocate
water to better
lands.




(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation. Not
likely unless it
can be tied into
an erosion control
program to reduce
overgrazing.


UTAH
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagri cultural
uses . State is
already acting to
encourage transfer
of land to
industry .






(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund . State
program exists to
construct projects
for watershed pro-
tection and canal
lining, etc. , with
state costs re-
imbursed over
multi-year period
without interest.
This program aug-
ments ASCS, RC&D
and Four Corners
programs . Possibly
revolving fund
could be used in
future to accel-
erate transfers
if necessary .


(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation . Question-
able . Possible
under tax in-
cen t ive p ro gram .




WYOMING
(a) Promote con-
version of land to
nonagricul tural
uses . Need to con-
vert agricultural
land as a salinity
control measure
is not clear.






(b) Establish
state grant or
loan fund. DEPAD
has low cost (4%
to 5-1/2%) farm
loan program of up
to $60 million.
Loans, secured by
land, are made for
construction of
reservoirs , canals ,
etc. , and for
sprinkler systems
and wells. These
loans supplement
ASCS and RC&D
grants. If need
to convert agri-
cultural land
became evident ,
DEPAD could use
loan funds to do
so .
(c) Encourage
vegetation modifi-
cation . Question-
able ; saline
runoff is believed
significant but
much of the land
is federal . May
be opposition from
wildlife interests .

-------
    8.  Establish special use charges for irrigation water
        provided from reclamation projects to cause more
        efficient usage and to encourage waste control
        measures.  Use excess funds derived to finance
        waste control capital improvements on farms and
        in the conveyance systems.

        Background of the action.  This action has the underlying

assumption that if the amount of irrigation water diverted and applied

is kept to the minimum, salinity from agricultural sources will also be

kept at a minimum.  This action further assumes that higher costs per

quantity of water used will cause the amount diverted to be kept at the

minimum needed for the crop.  In the Imperial Irrigation District of

California this action (aimed at water conservation rather than salinity

control) was in part responsible for a 6 percent decrease in annual

water usage in 1976 from the previous year.

        Initiation of this action would rest with the local irrigation

and/or water conservation districts.   The greatest results in terms of

salinity reduction would be achieved in areas where irrigation return

flows are a source of increased salinity, such as in areas of Mancos Shale.

        In implementing Action #8, at least three different approaches

might be utilized.  The first approach is to establish special use charges

that would raise the unit cost of irrigation water to a level that will

reduce demand to the bare minimum necessary for crop production, yet not

endanger the economic health of the farms served.  Because of the varia-

tions in farm prices, costs and water needs of various crops, this level

may be very difficult to calculate.

        A second approach is to determine the amount of water needed in

a given year for a given crop and retain current charges for that quantity
                                217

-------
of water use.  However,  water usage above the pre-determined amount




would incur special use charges to discourage the unneeded usage.




        A third and perhaps simplest form of approach  is  that  used  in




the  Imperial Irrigation District—to measure the amount of  tailwater




and, if it exceeds 15 percent of the water delivered,  a penalty  charge




is assessed.  In the Imperial District example, the water cost triples.




        The intent of this action is not to raise additional dollars




for  local water delivery districts; it is designed to  reduce unnecessary




water consumption.  It is possible to design a water rate structure




that would not change a district's total revenue from  delivered water,




but  this would be particularly difficult to calculate  in  the first year




of implementation.  Any increased revenue from water deliveries could




be spent on conveyance system improvements or on-farm  improvements.




Ideally, the farmer who reduces water use to the minimum  needed for




crop growth would not suffer any out of pocket loss overall and might




even save money; only those who persist in over-application of water




would pay more.




        Questions have been raised concerning the legality of "pricing"




water above the cost of delivery.   Authoritative legal opinion states




that special use charges can be established by irrigation districts and




other water delivery districts on water from reclamation projects (al-




though the Bureau of Reclamation itself cannot furnish water for more




than its O&M cost, which is established by contract).  However, special




use charges would not be permitted on water appropriated under state law,




if users were charged a price in excess of the cost of delivery.
                               218

-------
        This action would not be a popular one when undertaken by




local irrigation districts.  In California's Imperial Irrigation




District, the reaction of farmers toward having their excess usage




result in increased cost has not been positive.  Local irrigation dis-




trict personnel have been met with considerable hostility by the water




user.  Nonetheless, the irrigation district staff believes that the




resulting reduction in water use has justified the unpopularity of the




program, and the penalty charge policy will be continued.




        It is possible that special use charges to conserve water may




become widespread in the West, even though not intended primarily as




a salinity control measure.  The July 15, 1977 Federal Register pub-




lished proposed issue papers relating to a comprehensive national water




policy under study by the Carter administration.   Some proposals would




require implementation of irrigation water efficiency measures.  Among




the methods mentioned (page 36792) was the establishment of user




charges on federally provided water to conserve limited water supplies




and encourage their most economic use.  Such a federal policy, although




aimed primarily at water conservation, would have a side benefit in




reduction of salinity in some areas of the Colorado River Basin.  Public




hearings on the proposed federal water policy began in July 1977-
                               219

-------
ARIZONA—Action #8




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  In Arizona, the




power to set the price of water is inherent within the powers and




purpose of irrigation water delivery districts  (ARS 45-1902) and for




irrigation districts (ARS 45-1571 through 1595).  The statutes are




silent on the usage of water price as a means of limiting consumption.




        Current status.  No actions are currently being taken in




Arizona to use water price as a means of salinity control.




        Potential feasibility.  Because of the relative lack of




irrigation return flow and the forecast conversion of agricultural




water usage to municipal and industrial uses, this action has limited




potential for Arizona and is not rated for feasibility.   Portions




of the Colorado River main stem, the Little Colorado,  and the Bill




Williams River have some agricultural return flows.  However,




other limitations on water consumption, caused by increased municipal




and industrial water usage, appear to be limiting "excess" consump-




tion already.  Further, control of return flow salinity from the




Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District is being addressed by Title I




of PL 93-320.
                                220

-------
 CALIFORNIA—Action #8




        Agency responsible  and  legal  authority.   The  ability  to  set




 price  is inherent  within  the  powers of  California irrigation  districts




 (WC 22225).




        Current  status.   In 1976  the  Imperial  Irrigation District




 instituted such  a  program to  achieve  water  conservation.   If  the




 measured tailwater exceeds  15 percent of  the water delivered  to  the




 irrigator, two times  the  cost per unit  of water  is added to the basic




 price.




        The  Imperial  Irrigation District  believes water pricing  is




 an effective means of achieving irrigation  efficiency.  In the first




 full year of implementation (1976), a 6 percent  reduction  in  total




 water  delivered  was achieved.   Similar  savings are expected in future




 years.  However  effective,  this method  is unpopular and difficult.




 Many farmers have  expressed extreme displeasure  in having  to  pay the




 additional charges, particularly  to the field personnel who take the




 measurements of  tailwater.




        The Coachella Irrigation  District uses other  methods  (which




 include a system of in-line storage reservoirs)  to improve efficiency




 in water usage.




        Potential  feasibility.  The Imperial Irrigation District's




 usage of price to  limit water consumption is effective to  achieve




water conservation; the salinity  problem  is dealt with by  other methods




 aimed at achieving a  "salt balance" for irrigated agriculture in




California.   Therefore,  the California usage of  price serves  as an
                                221

-------
illustration of how salinity might be reduced from irrigated agriculture




in other states.  There is little or no potential for a reduction of




salinity from the irrigated lands within the Colorado River Basin




portion of California.
                                222

-------
COLORADO—Action #8

        Agency responsible and  legal authority.  Water conservancy

districts are the prime agencies  responsible for setting prices of

water to the ultimate user.  The  Colorado River Conservation District

(CRS 37-46) and the  Southwestern  Water  Conservation District (CRS 37-47)

are given adequate powers to establish  the price of watery but own none.

Further, irrigation  districts  (CRS-37-41 through CRS 37-43)

are given sufficient powers to  affix levies, rates and tolls.  However,

it is unclear, because of case  law, whether price differentials can be

established for unneeded usage.

        Current status.  No actions are being taken to cause water

consumption to be limited through water pricing.

        Potential feasibility.  Although this action has potential to

reduce the amount of agricultural water delivered, particularly in

areas where agricultural return flows contribute substantially to

salinity, it does not meet the  criterion of being politically acceptable

on the local level,  as illustrated:
                                                              Major
        Potential Feasibility;	Feasible    Questionable   Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                                                X
        Administrative	X	


Control of salinity  (or at least  a reduction thereof) is not considered

to have a priority sufficient to  cause  the local water delivery agencies

to undertake an unpopular means of water conservation.  In other words,

while this action is legally viable in Colorado, there is no motivating

force to cause its use within the present institutional arrangements, and

Its costs and political opposition make it very unlikely to be implemented.
                                223

-------
NEVADA—Action #8




        This action is aimed primarily at agricultural usage.




Agricultural return flows are not the focus of salinity control on




the Colorado River in Nevada, hence this action has little or no




application for this state.
                               224

-------
NEW MEXICO—Action //8

        Agynrjy  ri'sp_oiis l_h I c- _njul IrgaJ  .'Hiljior I I y .   W;ilci  COIIMCI v;il Inu

districts are given  the power to sell water (NMSA 75-28-4).   New Mexico

irrigation districts are  also given powers to  charge for water (NMSA

75-22-29).  However, the  New Mexico statutes neither authorize nor

prohibit utilizing price  as  a. means to control consumption.

        Current  status.   No  actions are being"  taken to  use water pricing

to limit water use as a salinity control measure.

        Potential feasibility.   This  action would  have  a small impact on

salinity in New  Mexico because agricultural return flows are not at present

a major source of salinity  for the Colorado River.  Other measures to

achieve efficient water usage have been incorporated into the Navajo

Project.  Should agricultural return flows develop into a salinity source

requiring state  control,  this action  might provide an effective control

mechanism.  However, the  economic  consequences might close small,

marginal farms and the resulting reallocation  of irrigation  water

might result in  no change in salinity.   Responsibility  for initiation

of the action would  rest with the  local irrigation and  water conser-

vation districts; the potential  lack  of popularity of this approach

would make it difficult to achieve politically.

                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                         X
        Political                                                    X
        Administrative                  X
                                225

-------
UTAH—Action #8

        Agency responsible and legal authority.  In Utah, water

conservation districts are given the power to set water rates (UCA

73-9-14).   Irrigation districts also are given the power to charge for

water (UCA 73-9-13) .  The Utah statutes are silent on the use of water

price as a means of limiting the quantity of water used.

        Current status.  No actions are being taken in Utah to use

price as a means of reducing salinity from agriculture.

        Potential feasibility.  Although this action has potential to

reduce the amount of agricultural water delivered, particularly in

areas where agriculture return flows contribute substantially to

salinity,  it does not meet the criterion of being politically acceptable

on the local level.  Control of salinity (or at least a reduction thereof)

is not considered to have a priority sufficient to cause the local water

delivery agencies to undertake an unpopular means of water conservation.

                                                                 Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                         X
        Political                                                  x
        Administrative	X	___^	

As illustrated, although this action seems legally viable in Utah, there is

no motivating force to cause its use within the present institutional

arrangements.
                                226

-------
WYOMING—Action #8

        Agency responsible  and legal  authority.   Wyoming water  con-

 servation  districts  (WSA 41-91)  are given  adequate  authority  to fix

 the price  of water.   Irrigation districts  are  also  given powers to

 sell  or lease water  (WSA 41-330).   The  authority  to set  the price of

 water from Fontenelle Reservoir is  given to the Wyoming  Department of

 Economic Planning and Development  (WSA  9-160.39).   However, using price

as a means of controlling water use is neither approved nor denied in

the statutes.

        Current status.  No actions are being taken to limit water use

by means of pricing,  in order  to achieve salinity control.

        Potential feasibility.  It  is not  clear whether  Wyoming

 agricultural return  flows are  a major part of  the state's contribution

 to the salinity of  the Colorado  River.  This matter is currently under

 study by the Southwest Wyoming 208  planners.  Should agricultural return

 flows be found to be  a source  requiring some salinity control action,

water pricing is legally  feasible in  Wyoming.  However,  as initiation

 and implementation of this  unpopular  action rests with the local irriga-

 tion  and water conservation districts, using water  price  as a salinity

control measure would probably mean considerable political opposition,

as illustrated below.
                                                                  Major
        Potential  Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                                                    X
        Administrative                X
                                227

-------
ACTION
8. Establish
special use
charges for
irrigation
water pro-
vided from
reclamation
projects to
cause more
efficient
usage and to
encourage
waste control
measures . Use
excess funds
derived to
finance waste
control
capital im-
provements on
farms and in
the conveyance
system.


NJ
K)
00


































>-"
E-t
&
0
PS
EH
5
<












CO
g
<
H
CO
EH
z
9
3
S3
CJ









t^
EH
1— |
J
1— 1
PQ
f— 1
CO
a
N
<
M
W
H
O
PL,




ARIZONA
ARS 45-1902 & ARS
45-1571 Power to
set price of water
is incidental to
powers and purpose
of irrigation
water delivery
districts and
irrigation dis-
tricts.

General






No present ac-
tion by water
resources
agencies to use
price as a
means to en-
courage ef-
ficient usage
and reduce
salinity.
The Salt
River Project
incorporates
other water use
efficiency
measures .
This action has
little potential
in Arizona due
to the nature of
the Arizona
salinity problem.













CALIFORNIA
WC 22225 Power to
set price of water
is incidental to
powers of irrigation
districts .

General











The Imperial
Irrigation Dis-
trict uses price
as a means of
achieving con-
servation. The
Coachella Irriga-
tion District in-
corporates other
means of achiev-
ing water use
efficiency .




This action has
little salinity
control potential
for California,
















COLORADO
CRS 37-46 and
37-47 gives powers
to set water prices
to conservancy
districts on
Colorado River.
Irrigation dis-
tricts are also
given these
powers in CRS 37-41
through 37-43.

General





No action by water
delivery agencies
to use price as a
means to encourage
efficient usage
and to reduce
salinity .









This action has
high potential for
the Mancos Shale
areas of Colorado .
However, it has
low political
feasibility as
there is no mo-
tivation for
Colorado irrigation
districts to
implement an un-
popular means of
salinity control .
Reported federal
plans to achieve
water conservation
may cause this
action to take
place , however .
NEVADA
NRS 539.313
gives irrigation
districts powers
to set water
prices.
NRS 541.140 gives
water conservancy
districts the
right of pricing
water. This
action does not
apply in Nevada,
within the Colo-
rado River
Basin.

General

This action does
not apply to
Nevada because
of very limited
agricultural
return flows in
the Colorado
River Basin.








This action does
not apply to
Nevada becaus2 of
very limited
agricultural
return flows in
the Colorado
River Basin.












NEW MEXICO
NMSA 75-28-4 gives
water conservation
districts power
to sell water and
similar powers are
given irrigation
districts (75-22-
29).

General








No action by
water resources
agencies to use
price as a means
to encourage
efficient usage .
The Navajo Project
utilizes other
measures to
achieve water use
efficiency .





It is doubtful
that much could be
gained in New
Mexico by this
action.

	
UTAH
UCA 73-9-13(g)
gives Utah water
conservation dis-
tricts au tho r i t y
to fix water rates.
UCA 73-9-14 gives
similar powers to
Utah irrigation
districts.

General







No action by
water delivery
agencies to use
price as a means
to encourage
efficient usage
and to reduce
salinity.








This action seems
legally possible
in Utah, but be-
cause local ir-
rigation and con-
servancy districts
Should salinity | are the implement-
from irrigated j infi agencies, the
agriculture become
a problem, this
action is possible
but it has low
political feasi-
bility. Reported
federal plans to
achieve water
conservation may
cause this action
to take place ,
however.
action has low
political feasi-
bility . Reported
federal plans to
achieve water
conservation may
include price as
one of the water
efficiency methods.



WYOMING
WSA 41-91 Water
conservation
districts and
irrigation dis-
tricts (WSA 41-330)
are given adequate
authority to ac-
complish this
action. WSA 9-
160.39 DEPAD is
given authority to
set rates on water
from Fontenelle
Reservoir .

General


No action by water
resources agencies
to use price as a
means to encour-
age efficient
usage and to reduce
salinity.









The contribution of
irrigated agricul-
ture to Wyoming
salinity is cur-
rently under study.
Should the con-
tribution be con-
siderable, this
action is legally
possible, but would
encounter political
opposition. However
reported federal
plans to achieve
water conservation
may include price
as a method of
eliminating wastage.



-------
    9.  By use of state economic incentives, promote conversion
        of marginal agricultural water to other uses, or increase
        irrigation efficiency, to reduce or eliminate salinity
        resulting from irrigation return flows.

        Background of the action.  Recognizing the resistance of

the agricultural sector to sanctions or administrative regulation

of water use as a means of controlling salinity, this action pro-

poses state economic incentives designed to stimulate voluntary

actions by irrigators.  There is some equity in the proposal, which

avoids placing the major financial burden of salinity control on

the agricultural irrigators and instead spreads the burden over all

state residents by using state tax monies to finance improvements.

        State grant or loan fund.  One form of economic incentive

would be to establish a state grant or loan fund to supplement

federal programs of cost sharing to finance on-farm improvements pro-

moting irrigation efficiency.

        At present, besides the inherent financial incentive of

greater productivity or efficiency of water use, farmers may apply

for a subsidy for implementing certain on-farm improvements from

the following federal government programs:  USDA Agricultural

Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS); Soil Conservation

Service, Rural Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program; and the

Four Corners Regional Commission, which provides funding in Arizona,

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.  Neither California nor

Wyoming receives funding from a regional commission.  The federal

funding provided varies among states (some get no funding, although

all Colorado River Basin states do) and among counties within a
                                 229

-------
 single  state.   County variations  are  determined by ASCS county




 committees  of  local  farmers, who  specify  the  improvement activities




 which are highest priority  in  that  county,  and  also specify the




 percentage  of  federal funding  subsidy (in the range of  50 to 75




 percent of  total cost).  The federal  funding  is insufficient for




 the number  of  legitimate requests,  "and probably always will be"




 according to one spokesman.




         To  supplement the incentive supplied  by federal funding,  the




 states  can  provide their own programs of  grants, low interest loans,




 loan guarantees (e.g.,  state guarantees of  commercial loans), or  tax in-




 centives .   The tax incentive would  logically  take  the form of a multi-




 year forgiveness of  ad  valorem property tax on  the improvement.  Farmers




 already would  obtain benefits  from  their  improvement investment on




 state income taxes.




         Before augmenting the federal programs with state-funded




 programs, the states are likely to work through  their congressional




 delegations for increased federal funding for cost-shared programs.




         No state now gives a property tax incentive, although it is




 under consideration in Nevada.   Any such action would probably re-




 quire new legislation.




        Establish an  agency  to trade in water rights.  An imaginative




approach to  salinity  control has been proposed by Charles W. Howe




and Douglas  V.  Orr of the Department of Economics of the University of
                                230

-------
 Colorado.    They propose to establish an agency to trade in water

 rights, buying  lower value water rights from marginal agricultural

 lands, and  excess water rights from farmers.   The rights would  be

 held  and  later  sold  for higher valued uses.   The Howe-Orr proposal

 envisions an agency  with a probable dual purpose of economic develop-

 ment  and  control of  salinity.   This agency should be able to acquire

 water rights or excess  water from certain agricultural users and

 sell  the  rights to nonagricultural users or  to agricultural lands

 with  low  salinity.   As  only willing seller-willing buyer transac-

 tions would occur, there would be no undue coercion on the land

 owner.  The agency,  of  course,  would require  adequate appropriations,

 particularly in the  early years.

        In  all  Colorado River  Basin states,  there is no statutory

 authority to create  such an agency.   However,  in all states there

 is  an existing  agency which has adequate powers  to acquire water

 in  the best interests of the state.   No actions  of this nature  were

 noted in any of the  states.   In Utah,  however,  the Division of

 Water Resources is consistently encouraging industrial users to buy

 water rights from marginal agricultural lands.

        Throughout the  West, implementation of  this action could  be

 restricted  by legal  problems regarding transferability of water,

 statutes requiring basin-of-origin protection, need to protect  the

 rights of junior  appropriators,  etc.
        l-Howe, C.W., and D.V. Orr, "Effects of Agricultural Acreage
Reduction on Water Availability and Salinity in the Upper Colorado River
Basin," Water Resources Research, October 1974; and Howe, C.W. and D.V.
Orr, "Economic Incentives for Salinity Reduction and Water Conservation
in the Colorado River Basin," Salinity in Water Resources, Boulder,
Colorado:  Merriman Publishing Co., 1974, pp. 120-138.
                                231

-------
ARIZONA—Action #9

        Authority.  There is no statutory authority for the estab-

lishment of a state grant or loan fund in Arizona.

        There is likewise no specific statutory authority to estab-

lish an agency to trade in water rights, although the Arizona Water

and Power Plan (ARS 45-2501 through 45-2521) agency has authority

to plan and execute projects and to acquire water rights if it should

choose to do so.

        Current status.  No action is underway in Arizona to implement

either a state grant or loan fund, or an agency to trade in water

rights.

        Potential feasibility.  The relatively small amount of saline

irrigation return flow into the Colorado River from Arizona (except

for Wellton-Mohawk) makes it unlikely that state funds would be

used for Action //9.
                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:   Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                     X
        Political                                          X
        Administrative                	 	 X	
                                232

-------
CALIFORNIA—ACtion #9

        Authority.  California has no specific statutory authority

for either part of this action.  However, Pub. Res. Code 9063 directs

the California Soil Conservation Commission to "aid and encourage,

but not conduct, soil conservation activities," and the federal

ASCS program funds about 40 to 50 percent of farmer requests.  There is

no state water rights control over allocations from the Colorado River;

these are governed by Federal Government contracts with individual

water districts.

        Current status.  No action is underway in California, either

to provide state grants and loans, or to create an agency to trade

in water rights.

        Potential feasibility.  The Colorado River Basin area of

California appears to be accomplishing about as much as can be done

to control salinity already, using ASCS funding and supporting other

improvements as a means of gaining greater economic efficiency.

Thus a state grant and loan fund does not promise significant im-

provements over this existing program unless a program acceleration

can result.
                                                              Major
        Potential Feasibility:   Feasible     Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                    X
        Political                                X
        Administrative                           X	
                                 233

-------
COLORADO—Action #9




        Authority.  Colorado has statutory authority to make both




loans and grants  (CRS 35-70-103), but is not funded to do so.  A




small ($89,000) appropriation was made by the 1976 Colorado legis-




lature to pay some of the administrative expenses of the 83 soil




conservation districts.




        The Water Conservation Board has the duty of promoting the




greatest degree of water conservation and utilization and can per-




fect water rights in the name of the Department of Natural Resources




(CRS 37-60-102, 106).




        Current status.  Colorado has no activity underway to imple-




ment Action #9.




        Potential feasibility.  Irrigation improvements are being




made slowly but steadily by irrigators through a combination of




ASCS and other federal funding, and irrigator investment to improve




efficiency of water use and to reduce labor costs.  There has been




no serious effort to promote a state loan or grant program, even




given the state policy to encourage agriculture and conserve water,




and legislative willingness to appropriate funds for such a program




is believed to be small.




        The concept of establishing a state agency to deal in water




rights to help meet certain objectives of state water policy has




some promise.  The state is currently studying water policy options




related to agriculture, industrial development, energy alternatives,




etc.  State initiatives in creating a water bank, in arranging sale
                                 234

-------
and leaseback of water,  in buying water rights to promote beneficial

forms of development,  minimum stream flows, etc., are under discus-

sion.  Certain legal aspects are still questionable but some are

believed likely to be resolved soon.

                                                              Major
        Potential Feasibility:  Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                             X
        Political                         X
        Administrative                    X
                               235

-------
NEVADA—Action #9




        Authority.  Nevada has no authority to establish a grant




or loan fund, although serious legislative consideration is being




given to a reduction in ad valorem taxes of irrigated farms if




ditches are lined or other water saving improvements are made.




        There is no statutory authority in Nevada to create an




agency to trade in water rights.  However, NRS 538.171 authorizes




the Administrator of the Division of Colorado River Resources to




"receive, protect, safeguard and hold in trust for the State of




Nevada all . . . water rights ... to the waters of the Colorado




River ..."




        Current status.  The Division of Colorado River Resources




controls allocation of Colorado River water, and there is no need




for further control of water rights.  The shortage of water in




Nevada has resulted in careful control of the use and reuse of




water, and in the development of extensive water saving improvements.




        Future potential.  Nevada has fully allocated its Colorado




River water resources, thus protecting its rights to compact-allocated




water.  As the need for water grows, the Division of Colorado River




Resources may be able to help meet urgent needs by intervening to




purchase and resell water rights, thus reallocating available




resources to higher priority and more efficient users.  However, at




present there appears to be no need for the state incentives described




in Action #9.
                                  236

-------
         .°~At> L



        Authority.  New Mexico has  a  grant and loan program, from




 the  irrigation works  construction fund and other funding under the




 control of  the Interstate  Stream Commission.  The grant program,




 currently funded  at $150,000/year by  state appropriation, can pro-




 vide grants of up to  15 percent of  the cost of improvements constructed




 by community ditch (acequia)  organizations, which can supplement 70




 or 80 percent federal funding.  A loan fund of approximately $2




 million can lend  money to  community ditch organizations at  2-1/2




 percent interest  to pay the balance of the cost.  Funds can be used to




 increase irrigation efficiency, which may in turn (but not necessarily)




 reduce salinity.



        The Interstate Stream Commission  has the power "to  develop,




 to conserve,  to protect and to do any and all other things  necessary




 to protect,  conserve  and develop the  waters and stream systems of the




 state"  (NMSA 75-34-3), which  implies  the  power to acquire and perfect




 water rights.




        Current status.  The  grant  and loan program in New  Mexico is




 effective in promoting water  conservation measures.  Since  currently




 irrigated soils are not very  saline,  irrigated agriculture  is not




 yet  considered a  major source of salinity in the Colorado River Basin




 portion of  New Mexico.  As  remaining  compact-allocated water is





 utilized, however, increased  consumptive  use will increase  salt concen-




 tration in  tributaries of  the Colorado River.  The State Engineer allo-




 cates water rights but does not trade in  rights as Action #9 suggests.




         Potential feasibility.  Action #9 is generally feasible in




New Mexico as a means of increasing irrigation efficiency, but since




irrigated agriculture is not  yet perceived as





                                 237

-------
a serious source of salinity in the CRB area of New Mexico, Action #9

is limited in its potential effectiveness.  Some increase in funding

of the grant and loan fund would of course permit an increase in its

usefulness.

                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:    Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                       X
        Political                         X
        Administrative                    X
                               238

-------
UTAH—Action #9





        Authority.  Utah, in 1947, created a revolving fund  (UCA 73-10-1)




administered by the Board of Water Resources to construct projects to




promote efficiency of water use.  The construction cost is repaid, with-




out interest, over a period of years  (varying from a few below five




years to a maximum of 35, with most about 15-20 year periods).  Most




loans are made to mutual irrigation companies, with very few to in-




dividuals.  In the 39 years of the program, the Utah legislature has




appropriated $12 million, of which $9 million has been repaid and




a total of $21 million spent.  Because  the loans generally are used to




supplement federal funding, some $40 million in projects have been




constructed with the aid of the program.  Most improvements funded




are watershed protection projects, including 40 dams, hundreds of




miles of canal lining, pressure and sprinkler irrigation systems,




plus municipal water supply projects for smaller towns.




        The Board of Water Resources can acquire and perfect water




rights for the development and utilization of state waters (UCA 73-10-4).




There is an informal policy encouraging industrial users to buy




marginal agricultural land water rights.




        Current status.  Utah has been accomplishing many of the in-




tended goals of Action #9 in somewhat less formal ways.  The revolving




fund provides a considerable economic incentive to mutual irrigation




companies to improve irrigation efficiency, although the fund rarely




is used to assist individuals.  Although the Division of Water Re-




sources does not itself trade in water rights, it does informally
                                239

-------
act as a catalyst to promote transfer of marginal agricultural water

rights to industry.

        Potential feasibility.   Although some preliminary thought

has been given to the concept of a water rights bank, there are ap-

parent problems of political resistance to having a state agency

enter the water rights market and "tamper" with private property

rights.  Until the legislature and state administration provide di-

rection and funding, the implementation of a state water rights

bank appears unlikely to be implemented.

                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:    Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                       X
        Political                                          X
        Administrative                   X
                                240

-------
WYOMING—Action  #9




        Authority.  Wyoming  has  a  statute  (WSA 41-1.42)  authorizing




state farm loans  (at  4  to  5-1/2  percent  interest)  of not to  exceed




$60 million total.  The Department of  Economic Planning  and  Develop-




ment  (DEPAD) has  broad  authority to make loans to  individuals, ditch




companies or corporations, secured by  real  estate.  Loans  in excess




of $150,000 can be made only to  assessment  districts.  Loans for




canals and diversion  works for agricultural purposes carry a 4 percent




interest rate; those  for sprinkler irrigation  systems, other mechanical




equipment or wells are  5-1/2 percent loans  for a 15 year term.




        DEPAD also has  authority to acquire water  rights and sell




water to industrial concerns (9-160.30).




        Current status.  The state farm  loan fund  actively promotes




on-farm improvements  to promote  increases in water use efficiency-




Although DEPAD has authority to  trade  in water rights, it  does not




engage in trading that would convert agricultural water  to other




uses.  This is largely because of  a conviction that irrigated agri-




culture is not a  major  contributor to  salinity in  the Green  River,




whereas natural runoff  from  shallow shales  in  the  desert country




is perceived to be a  major cause.   There is believed to  be little or




no "marginal" irrigated agriculture on saline  lands in Wyoming, as




poor quality lands (e.g., Mancos shale)  are left unirrigated.




        Potential feasibility.  Until  conditions change  or new evidence




appears to indicate that irrigated  agriculture is  a significant




contributor to salinity, DEPAD is  unlikely  to  promote conversion of




agricultural water rights as a salinity  control measure.
                                241

-------
                                                       Major
Potential Feasibility:   Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
Legal                       X
Political                                                X
Administrative                                     X
                       242

-------
ACTION
9. By use of
state economic
incentives , pro-
mote conversion
of marginal agri-
cultural water to
other uses , or
increase irri-
gation efficien-
cy, to reduce or
eliminate salin-
ity resulting
from irrigation
return flows :
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
(b) Establish an
agency to trade
in water rights.




N3
4>-
<_O



























ARIZONA
(a) Establish
loan fund.
No statutory
authority.























CALIFORNIA
(a) Establish
loan fund.
$o statutory
authority.
PRC 9063 directs
Soil Conservation
Commissi on to
"aid and encour-
age, but not con-
duct , soil con-
servation
activities .



COLORADO
(a) Establish
loan fund.
CRS 35-70-103
authorizes soil
conservation board
to give grants and
loans to districts.
(Note : current
annua 1 f und ing i s
only $89,000, to
be used for admin-
istrative expenses
NEVADA
(a) Establish
loan fund.
No statutory
authority.








of 83 districts.) <
j
df.nf.rfi 1
NEW MEXICO
(a) Establish
loan fund.
NMSA 75-34-28
authorizes State
Engineer to make
loans to community
ditch organiza-
tions (interpreted
to include soil
and water conser-
vation districts)
UTAH
(a) Establish
loan fund .
UCA 73-10-1
creates revolving
fund to construct
proj ects to pro-
mote efficiency of
water use . Fund
is administered by
Board of Water
Resources, under
for constructing, i~UCA 73-10-23.
WYOMING
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
"WSA 41-1.42
authorizes state
financing (loans)
for the construc-
tion of water
conservation
projects to
abate pollution
and promote
beneficial use
improving and ' iof water.
rehabilitating ir- Specific
rigation sysf-ems. 'Specific
[ Specific '
(b) Establish an (b) Establish an (b ) Establish an (b) Establish an
agency to trade in jagency to trade in agency to trade in aeencv to trade in
(b) Establish an j(b) Establish an (b) Establish an
agency to trade in agency to trade in agency to trade in
water rights. No water rights. No water rights. No water rights. No water rights. No water rights. No water rights. No
authority to ere- .'authority to ere- authority to ere- authority to ere- authority to ere- authority to authority to cre-

J)H
H
M
&
o
K
C_,
B





















ate a new agency
exists. ARS 45-
512 gives the
Arizona Water Com-
ate a new agency ate a new agency ate a new agency ar-e a new agency create a new ate a new agency
exists. exists. CRS 37- exists. NRS 538. exists. NMSA 75- agency exists. ^exists. WSA 9-
160-102 and -106 171 gives autho- 34-3 gives the UCA 73-10-4 as- 1160.30 authorizes
Igive authority to rity to Adminis- Interstate Streams signs responsi- IDepartment of
mission the power ' [Water Conserva- trator of Divi- Commission the .bility to the Economic Planning
to plan water ',
usage, but execu- |
tion seems speci- |
fically prohibited
under current
statutes (ARS 45-
501). This
action, to fall
within present
statutes , would
have to be a part
of the Arizona
Water and Power
Plan CARS 45-2501
through 45-2521) .
The State Water
and Power Plan has
authority to plan
and execute proj-
ects and acquire
water rights.
General

General

















tion Board for ' sion of Colorado power "to develop, iBoard and Division land Development
promoting water | River Resources to conserve, to of Water Resources 1 (DEPAD) to plan
conservation and ' to no]_cl water protect and to do If or development land execute water
utilization. The rights and safe- any and all other and utilization of idevelopment projects,
Board can perfect guard the water 'things necessary waters of state. !including acquisi-
water rights in Of the river. to protect, con- The Board can Ition of water rights
the name of the , serve and develop iacquire and per- land sale of water
Department of General the waters and Ifect water rights 'to industrial
Natural Resources.. stream systems of for these projects, concerns .

General























the state." The
power to acquire iGeneral General
and perfect water
rights is implied
in this statute.

General



























-------
ACTION
9. By use of
state economic
incentives , pro-
mote conversion
of marginal agri-
other uses , or
increase irri-
gation efficien-
cy, to reduce or
eliminate salin-
ity resulting
from irrigation
return flows :
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
(b) Establish an
agency to trade
in water rights .




r-o
.p-






































Ol
3
H
<
E-"
C/}
H
2
W
Ci
Pi
;=>
CJ









ARIZONA
(a) Establish
state grant or
Loan fund.
No grant or loan
:und; no tax


















(b) Establish an
agency to trade in
water rights . No
actions by water
resources agencies.











CALIFORNIA
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
No grant or loan
fund; no tax in-
centive . ASCS
program funds
about 40-50% of
requests .















(b) Establish an
agency to trade in
water rights . No
actions by water
resources agencies.











COLORADO
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
No grant or loan
fund; no tax in-
centive . Legis-
lature has in
1976 appropriated
$89,000 for ad-
ministrative
expenses of
state ' s 83 soil
conservation
districts.










(b) Establish an
agency to trade in
water rights . No
actions by water
resources agencies.











NEVADA
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
There is serious
consideration to
giving farmers a
tax break if
they line ditches
and make water
saving improve-
ments. This
would be a reduc-
tion in ad valorem
taxes on their
farms . State
legislature is
generally opposed
to grant programs .






(b) Establish an
agency to trade in
water rights .
This action does
not apply to
Nevada as the wa-
ter which is
available is
being used and
reused. All water
in Las Vegas
Valley is used for
municipal and in-
dustrial purposes ,
with minor
exceptions.
NEW MEXICO
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
N.M. Interstate
Streams Commis-
sion has a grant
and loan program
to supplement
ASCS, RC&D and
Four Corners
funds. State
grant program
(funded at
$150,000/yr) can
provide up to 15%
grant and can
loan money at
2-1/2% interest
to community
ditch organiza-
tions to pay
balance of cost .
Loan fund is
nearly $2 million.
(b) Establish an
agency to trade in
water rights . No
actions by water
resources agencies.











UTAH
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund .
State program ex-
ists to construct
projects for water-
shed protection
and canal lining,
etc . , with state
costs reimbursed
over multi-year
period without in-
terest. This
program augments
ASCS, RC&D and
Four Corners pro-
grams. The program
has advanced $21
million to date ,
assisting $AO
million of project
construction.


(b) Establish an
agency to trade in
water rights . No
formal actions by
water resources
agencies . However ,
informally the
Division of Water
Resources has been
encouraging indus-
trial users to buy
water rights of
marginal agricul-
tural lands .


WYOMING
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund.
DEPAD has low
cost (4% to
c -i lf)a/\ fa-rm
j i / L/o ) rarm
loan program of
up to $60 million.
Loans , secured by
land, are made for
construction of
reservoirs , canals ,
etc . , and for
sprinkler systems
and wells. These
loans supplement
ASCS and RC&D
grants .






Cb) Establish an
agency to trade in
water rights. No
actions by water
resources agencies.












-------
ACTION
9. By use of
incentives , pro-
mote conversion
of marginal agri-
cultural water to
other uses , or
increase irri-
gation efficien-
cy, to reduce or
eliminate salin-
ity resulting
from irrigation
return flows :
(a) Establish
state grant or
loan fund .
(b) Establish an
agency to trade
in water rights.

fsj
.c-
i-n























H
lj
H
tn

-------
   10.  Administratively modify leases of state lands  (at time of
        lease or renewal) to prohibit agricultural practices which
        cause erosion or excess runoff of saline water, and to
        improve the land to reduce runoff by:  prohibiting agri-
        culture or grazing on certain soil types, restricting
        grazing intensity, and modifying vegetation on rangeland
        to reduce salinity from runoff.1

        Background of the action.  Most of the states of the Colorado

River Basin derive substantial income from both the sale and the lease

of state lands.  These lands are leased for agricultural purposes,

mineral development, timbering, grazing and a multitude of special

uses.  While most state lands are leased for grazing, there are

substantial quantities of land being used as cropland and for irri-

gated agriculture.  Provisions regarding the ownership of water used

for irrigated agriculture on state lands vary from state to state.

        There are several different actions which could be taken to

reduce salinity loading resulting from the use of state lands.

Grazing leases, for example, could be conditioned to prevent over-

grazing in areas where such over-grazing would substantially disturb

the topsoil.  Subsequent rains and the resultant runoff from such lands

return highly saline waters to the stream system.

        If state lands were leased for irrigated agriculture, condi-

tional leases requiring efficient agricultural practices would result
         This does not include leases of state lands for mineral
development purposes.  The restoration of surface areas following
surface mining also is likely to reduce saline flows into the Colorado.
However, the proposed action does not encompass such restoration since
special attention already is given to it through mined land restoration
statutes.
                                246

-------
in a reduction of irrigation return flows.  This would result  in  a




reduction of both the quantities of water required and the salinity




level of the Colorado River.  Such conditional agricultural leases




could require specific methods of irrigation  (sprinkler or trickle




instead of flood or ditch-and-furrow).  The production of specific




crops could be encouraged by lease rates.  Types of fertilizers and




pesticides used on state lands could also be controlled in this manner.




        The critical constraint on a system of conditional leases of




state land is enforcement.  The ability of state land agencies in




the states of the Colorado River Basin to administer a system  of




conditional leases is essential to the overall success of such a




program.  Without the reality of enforcement, a conditional lease




system may  prove  to be  relatively ineffective.




        Politically,  the imposition  of any new constraints in state




land leases is likely to be resisted by the agricultural interests who




consider state lease  renewals almost as a property right and understandably




object to lease provisions that increase their operating expenses.
                                247

-------
  ARIZONA—Action #10




          Authority.  The primary authority for the administration of




  ArL/oiKi Mini i.1 hnulM rculM wllh llu- Slnlo l,nn<1 Dcpnrl inciil .   The St;i(c




  Land Commissioner is to determine those lands which are suitable for




  both grazing and agriculture (ARS 37-211.A).  The Commissioner also




  has the authority to classify lands for specific purposes and to




  reclassify lands when such reclassifications are in the best interests




  of the state (ARS 37-212.B, C).





        Leasing of  state lands  falls within the responsibilities




of the State Land Department and the State Land Commissioner.  The




Commissioner, along with the authority  to lease state lands,  is




authorized to make  long range plans for the use of state  lands




(ARS 37-132.A.3 to  5).  Furthermore, the State Land Department has




the authority to acquire land for agricultural use.   To further this





acquisition, the Land Department is authorized to exercise eminent




domain authority  (ARS 37-372.A).




        In terms of a comprehensive approach  to state land use, the




Office of Environmental Planning is authorized to maintain data on a




state land use plan (ARS 37-163.A).  The Office of Environmental




Planning is also authorized to coordinate the plans and programs of




all state departments, agencies and instrumentalities.




        Current status.  Only 30 percent of the land  areas falling




within the confines of the State of Arizona is in private, state or




local government ownership.  The remaining 70 percent falls under the




jurisdiction either of the federal government or of one of several
                                  248

-------
Indian tribes.  Most of the state lands which  are  leased  are used for


grazing, although there is limited irrigated agriculture.  Only  13  percent


of Arizona lands fall within the state land trust,  i.e.,  are state-owned.


        State lands are leased under the classifications  determined


by the State Land Commissioner.  Failure to use the land  for the


purposes contained in the lease is usually grounds  for  state action

                                        2
to terminate the lease (R 12-5-109/121).   Leases can be  specifically


conditioned to require or prohibit certain activities,  though this  is


not usually done.  The primary condition regarding  grazing lands is


the establishment of animal unit month (AUM) carrying capacity.   This


carrying capacity is the basis upon which the  rent  for  specific  lands


is determined (R 12-5-154.F).  Requests to exceed the established


carrying capacity must be made to the State Land Commissioner


(R 12-5-154.K).


          In terms of agricultural leases, acts which jeopardize the


  land or water rights of the state are grounds for terminating  the lease.3


  Improvements to agricultural lands (as well  as to grazing  lands)


  must be approved by the Commissioner prior to construction if  the


  individual making the improvement is to be compensated  for the improve-


  ment (R 12-5-124).  Improvements would seem  to include  changes in
        2
         Arizona, Department of State, "Official Compilation of Administra-

tive Rules and Regulations:  Chapter 5, Land Department," 1975.



         Arizona State Land Department, Agricultural Lease, Supplemental
Condition 18.
                                  249

-------
vegetation  (R 12-5-02.2).   Compensation for  the  eradication  of


"noxious growth" on  grazing lands,  which is  considered  an  improvement,


is to be amortized at  a  rate of  10  percent per annum (R 12-5-125.2).


(There are  also some vegetation  modification activities underway by


the Bureau  of Land Management on federal lands within Arizona.)


Vegetation  changes on  agricultural  lands, however, may  be  difficult


by virtue of the fact  that  prior approval from both  the State Land


Department  and the Commissioner  of  Agriculture and Horticulture are


required before plants protected by the Arizona  native  plant law can

           4
be removed.


        Finally, it  should  be noted that waste (of water and other


resources)  on state  lands is not allowed.    Should such waste occur,


the lease may be terminated.


        Potential feasibility.   Because of the limited  amount of land


(13 percent) in the  state land trust, major  state efforts  to modify


vegetation  may not be  justified,unless  similar efforts  are made on


federal and Indian lands.  This would shift primary emphasis


of the implementation of this proposed  action to the condition of


state grazing and agricultural leases.  No lease may be modified


during its term without the  consent of  both the state and the lessee.


This would require most changes  in  leases to occur at the time of


renewal.   Since the leases usually  run  for ten years, this action


could not be implemented very quickly.
        4
         Ibid., Special Condition.


         Arizona State Land Department, Grazing Lease, Supplemental
Condition B.
                                 250

-------
        Leases which conflict with land classifications are usually

terminated (R 12-5-131).  Were the State Land Department to reclassify

lands whose use for either agriculture or grazing would contribute

to the salinity loading characteristics of the Colorado River Basin,

subsequent leases under the new classification could speed up the

process of implementation.  New leases could then be issued in light

of the reclassification.  The critical variable in this situation

is the willingness of the State Land Commissioner to reclassify lands

in the face of seemingly inevitable political opposition.

        In the final analysis, the most promising potential seems to

rest with a conditioning of state land leases over time.   Though this

means of implementation would be slow (i.e., requiring ten years),

it may result in both the least number of uncertainties and a minimum

amount of opposition.
                                                                 Major
         Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
         Legal                        X
         Political                                  X
         Administrative                             X
                               251

-------
CALIFORNIA—Action #10

        Authority.  The California State Lands Commission has the

authority to determine possible uses of state lands.  These uses, which

are expressed as land use classifications, may be the basis for similar

classifications by other  state  agencies.   In  fact,  the Commission

has the authority to require  other state agencies to make land use

classifications (Pub.R. 6201).

        The Commission possesses  general authority  to administer,

sell, lease or dispose of public  lands  (Pub.R. 6216.a).  Within

this authority, other state agencies using state lands are subject

to the rules developed by the Commission  (Pub.R. 6221).  The

Commission also has the authority to apply these rules and regula-

tions to individual leases of state lands.

        Public land use plans,  to be prepared by city, county and

state planning agencies,  are  intended to include numerous environ-

mental factors.   Specifically,  these plans are to focus on the con-

servation of natural resources  including soils, the prevention of

erosion, and protection of watersheds (Gov. 65303.1, 5, 6).  This may

be adquate authority to include partial imp]ementatlon of the pro-

        Current status.   There  is very  little, if any, state land leased

for either agricultural or grazing purposes in California that falls

within the Colorado River Basin.6 Because of this, no current actions
         telephone  interview with Scott Atkins,  Land Transportation Unit,
 State Lands  Commission,  December 9,  and December 20, 1976.
                               252

-------
of the State Lands Commission regarding leasing of state lands will




have an impact on the salinity loading characteristics of the Colorado





River.




        Potential feasibility.  Even though implementation of this




action is not currently possible in California, certain procedures




developed in the state may well serve as a model for other Colorado




River Basin states.   When considering leases of state lands, the State




Lands Commission can deviate from existing rules in the public interest




(Ca.Adm. 1907).  When this occurs, the State Lands Division determines




the impact of the Commission's deviation.  If the impacts resulting




from Commission discretionary approval of a proposed project are sub-




stantial, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) comes into




effect.  Under CEQA guidelines, either an Environmental Data Statement




(EDS) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared




(Ca.Adm. 2905.a,1).   This type of procedure, which focuses on the




environmental desirability of actions proposed in the public interest,




would make implementation of conditional leases somewhat simpler and




perhaps more effective.
                                  253

-------
   COLORADO—Action #10

           Authority.  Leasing of state lands in Colorado falls

   within the authority of the State Board of Land Commissioners.

   The Commissioners are authorized to lease any portion of state

   lands (CRS 36-1-113).  Furthermore, the Commissioners are authorized

   to consider the proposed use of the land in establishing conditions

   for such leases (CRS 36-1-118.1).  The Commissioners are also

   directed to consider previous care and use of the land in promot-

   ing productivity when considering leases and lease renewal (CRS 36-1-118.2)

   The State Board of Land Commissioners has broad discretionary authority

   to administer state lands.

           Current status.  Very little state land, less than 12,000 acres,

   is leased for agricultural, i.e., farming, purposes in the counties

   falling within the Colorado River Basin.  Substantially more acreage,

   in excess of 431,000 acres, is leased for grazing purposes.

           Although state land leases can be specifically conditioned

   to implement certain policies, this is not currently being done.

   Historically,  the State Land Board has not actively carried out a
                                 Q
   policy of conditioning leases.   The Board,  in leasing state lands,

   does not follow a long-range plan involving future Colorado land

   use policies.
        ^Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners, Summary Status
Sheet, June 30, 1976.
        Q
         Interview with Tommy Neal, State Board of Land Commissioners,
October 15, 1976.
                                 254

-------
         The Board of Land Commissioners can terminate leases if the

 terms of the lease are  violated.   In fact,  warning letters concerning

 possible termination have been effective in correcting violations of

 existing leases  and state policies,  so  that there has not been a
                                             Q
 lease termination within  the  past  two years.

         Potential feasibility.  The  potential  for effective implementa-

 tion of the proposal in Colorado is  limited by the fact that there

 is very little agricultural  (other than grazing)  land leased in the

 Colorado River Basin.   Implementation of the action regarding grazing

 lands would be a possibility.   Such  implementation, however, would

 be hampered by both the lack  of staff resources and the historic

 posture of the State Land Commissioners.10  The fact  that  rental  rates

are determined by carrying capacity on grazing lands and by productive

capacity on agricultural lands would  encourage the use of these

factors in conditioning leases of  state  lands.

        The major obstacle to the  implementation of this type of action

seems to be the traditional unwillingness of the State Land Commissioners

to increase their authority over the  leasing of state lands.  Because

of this, implementation of this action may have to be preceded by

state executive direction  to the State Land Commissioners to implement

the proposal.

                                                                Major
        Potential Feasibility:    Feasible   Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                         X
        Administrative	                            X
        9 Ibid.

       1  Ibid.
                                   255

-------
NEVADA—Action  #10




        Authority.   Leasing of state lands in Nevada falls  within




the  authority of  the Administrator of the Division of State Lands




 (Nevada Revised Statutes  [NRS] 322.010).   The Administrator is




authorized  to identify areas of critical  environmental concern




 (NRS 321.720[3])  and to determine the suitability  of different




soil types  for  specific land uses (NRS 321.720[5]).   These  determina-




tions are to include a determination of the suitability of  land  for




agriculture (NRS  321.720[4][b]) .




        The Division of State Lands is the land use planning agency




of the state  (NRS 321.700).   Consistent with this  authority is the




authority of the  Administrator to coordinate all state and  local




 programs  regarding  the suitability of lands for specific land uses




(NRS  321.720[12]).  In terms of the feasibility of  the proposed




action, state land leases may be conditioned regarding the purpose




of the lease (NRS  322.050[1]).




        Authority concerning vegetation modification rests with the




Conservation Districts.  These Districts have the authority to regulate




vegetation modification and changes in land use within the District




(NRS  548.355).   Such regulation, however,  is subject to the permission




of the Division of State Lands (if they are state-owned  lands) or the




occupier of the lands  (NRS  548.355).




        Current status.  The  Nevada legislature, in 1965, enacted




a moratorium on the  sale, lease,  and  exchange  of state lands
                                256

-------
 (NRS  232.158)-  This moratorium  is  still  in  effect.11  Because of this




 the Division of State Lands  is not  currently leasing state  lands.




        Potential  feasibility.   The proposed action is not  feasible




 until such  time as the legislature  rescinds  the  leasing moratorium.




 It has been specifically recommended that  "until and unless the  legis-




 lature removed the moratorium it is recommended  that no leases of



                          12
 any kind be entered into."    Even  if  the  moratorium is lifted,  the




 limited amount of  land remaining under state jurisdiction  (86 percent




 of the State of Nevada falls under  the federal control of the Bureau



                                                                 13
 of Land Management) may limit the effectiveness  of  the proposal.
        11

         Memorandum  from L. William Paul, Deputy Attorney  General,

 to Addision A. Millard, Administrator, Division of  State Lands,

 November 23,  1976.


        12

         Ibid.




       13

         Interview with Nijoshi Nishikawa, Deputy Registrar of Land,

Division of State Lands, August 24, 1976.
                               257

-------
NEW MEXICO—Action  #10

        Authority.   The  Commissioner of Public Lands  is  authorized

to lease all  lands  owned by the State of New Mexico  (New Mexico

Statutes Annotated  [NMSA]  7-8-28).   The Commissioner  may promulgate

those  regulations necessary for the  administration of state  lands.

These  rules extend  to the consideration of water  rights  and  the

transfer of such rights  to state lands (NMSA 7-8-19.2).

        The Commissioner is directed to determine the carrying

capacity of land  in determining the  annual  rental rates  for  grazing

lands  (NMSA 7-8-30).  Improvements to lands  by the lessee  without

prior  approval of  the Commissioner are limited to $10 per  acre for

land improvement  and to $1,000 total cost for irrigation systems

 (NMSA  7-8-53).

        Finally, the Commissioner  is to maintain  data on the nature

and  quality of state lands.   The potential usefulness of state lands

for  different uses  (e.g., agriculture, timber, mineral development)

is to  be reflected  in terms  of  different land classifications  (NMSA 7-6-1).

        Current status.   The  State Land Office, under the direction

of the Commissioner  of Public Lands,  administers  leases  of state  lands.

Although leases can  be conditioned to reflect certain state  policy goals,

development of lands leased  is  usually left  to  the individual  lessee.

The general feeling of the State Land Office is that  only the  individ-

ual knows his own economic capacity  regarding the funding of improvements  on

leased lands.^
       -^Telephone interview with Dwain Glidewell, Range Manage-
ment Specialist, State Land Office,  Santa Fe, New Mexico, December  9,
1976.
                                258

-------
        The state owns in excess of 9 million acres of surface  land.

Most of this land is used for grazing.  The carrying capacity of  the

land is determined using Soil Conservation Service soil  types.

Types 1-4 are acceptable for development in irrigated agriculture.

Soil types appropriate to grazing lands are used  to determine

carrying capacity in  terms  of the types and quantitites  of forage

produced. -*
        The Commissioner of Public Lands may remove land from leasing

if  it is in the best  interest of the  state.16  Leases may  be conditioned

to  require specific horticultural or  animal husbandry practices.   If

these conditions are  violated,  the Commissioner has the  authority to

cancel  the  lease.17   Furthermore, leases may be cancelled  for a

"violation  of  any of  the  terms, covenants  or  conditions  of such

 lease  or instrument."^   Furthermore,  it would appear that the  Commis-

 sioner can  require  changes  in agricultural practices  on leased state

 land.   This authority specifically includes the cancellation of leases for

 abuses, such as overgrazing, although warnings usually are sufficient to rec-

 tify such abuses.   Where overgrazing is eliminated, saline return

 flows would also be reduced.

          Potential feasibility.  It would appear that the Commissioner

  of Public Lands has sufficient authority to implement the proposed action.

  The quantities of state lands appear adequate to support the  proposed
         15lbid.


           State of New Mexico,  Commissioner of Public Lands,  Rules
  and Regulations Pertaining to Grazing and Agriculture State Leases,
  December 22, 1971, Rule 2, p. 58.

           Ibid, Rule 25, p. 69.
                                 259

-------
action.  Because current leases already limit grazing to the estimated

carrying capacity of the land, there is little likelihood that more

stringent grazing conditions would have a significant effect on salinity.

In theory, conditional leases which would result in more efficient use of

state lands would result in reduced saline runoffs.

         Unfortunately, the policy that leaves to the lessee the funding

of improvements on state lands, and requires state approval of signifi-

cant improvements, could inhibit any implementation of the proposal.

For the proposal to be implemented, the Commissioner (or the Governor)

would have to develop specific policies which would override the current

focus on the financial capabilities of the individual lessee.  Were this

to occur, implementation of the proposal could occur rather rapidly as

current leases of state land are only of five years duration. '

                                                                 Major
        Potential feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                          X
        Political                                  X
        Administrative	       X
     19Ibid., Rule  9, p.  62.
                                 260

-------
 UTAH—Action #10

        Authority.   Primary authority for the administration and

 leasing of  Utah state lands falls with the Division of State Lands.

 This  division is  administered by the Board of State Lands (UCA 65-1-2.1)

 which determines  state policy regarding the use of state lands

 (UCA  65-1-1,  65-1-14).   The Director of the Division of State Lands

 administers the leasing of  such lands under the direction of the

 Board of  State Lands (UCA 65-1-3.1).

        The Board of State  Lands,  acting in the best interests of  the

 state, may  condition leases and may adopt rules and regulations (UCA

 65-1-44).   Also under the direction of the Board of State Lands, the

 Division  may  lease  farm lands acquired by the state via mortgage fore-

 closures  and may  establish  conditions for the use  of such lands

 (UCA 65-5-1).  Authority to implement the proposed action would seem

 to fall within the statutory authority of the Board of State Lands.

         Current status.  There is so little land used for irrigated

 agriculture in Utah that leases of state land for agricultural purposes

 are considered a  special use and are covered by the "Special Use Lease

 Application."  There are almost no state lands used for agriculture

 falling within the Colorado River Basin portion of the state.-0

        Under the provisions of the Special Use Lease, however,

 those lands that  are used for irrigated agriculture are controlled.

 The Board of State Lands may cancel leases for failures to comply
       ^interview with Lowell Johnson, State of Utah, Division of State
Lands, December 16, 1976.
                                261

-------
with the Rules and Regulations of the Board of State Lands.    These



rules include provisions requiring the lessee to apply approved crop


                                           90
management practices to state lands leased.    Individuals may convert



grazing lands to agricultural lands, which is considered a higher



use,   upon nine months notice to the State Land Board.^



        Most  of  lands  held by the  State of Utah  are used  for  grazing



purposes.  Under  the terms of the  grazing  lease, the State Land



Board may  determine the "number  and  kinds  of  livestock" to be



grazed  on  state  lands  as well as the "number  of  days and  seasons  of



the year"  during  which grazing is  allowed.25  Leases may  t,e cancelled



if  the  lessee violates any term  or  condition  of  the lease.



        Of interest in the grazing  lease is the  provision that the



"Lessee shall not cause waste by improper  grazing use or otherwise,



and shall  comply  with  good conservation practices to safeguard and



improve water and other surface  resources, and shall comply with



Lessor's requirements  and requests  respecting conservation practices." ^



Such "requirements and requests" by  the State Land Board  could



include the  provisions of the proposed action.
       91
         Utah Board of State Lands, "Rules and Regulations Governing the

 Issuance of Special Use Leases," February 19, 1975, Rule 10(1).



       22Ibid., Rule 10(2)(c).



       23Ibid., Rule 2.



       24Ibid., Rule 10(2)(h).



       25state of Utah, State Land Board, Grazing  Lease, Provision No.  1.



       26Ibid., Provision No. 6.
                                262

-------
        Potential  feasibility.   Implementation of  the  proposed

action regarding lands  used for irrigated agriculture  may be

inhibited by  both  the small amount of land used for  such purposes  and

the  length  of Special Use leases.   These leases may  be granted  for

a period of up to  51 years.  If the proposal is to be  implemented  at

the  time of renewal, the pace of implementation may  be unacceptably

slow.

        There  is greater potential for implementation of the proposed

action regarding grazing lands.  The aforementioned provision that  the

lessee of grazing lands must comply with the requirements and

requests of the State Land Board, or risk forfeiture of the existing

lease, would seem to allow for the implementation of the proposed

action.   In the final analysis,  the potential for the implementa-

tion of the proposal appears to be a function of the attitude of

the State Land Board toward conditional leases, stricter enforcement

of existing rules and regulations, and the promulgation of requests

and requirements concerning the  leases of state lands for grazing

purposes.
                                                               Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible    Questionable   Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                     X
        Administrative       	X	
                                263

-------
WYOMING—Action #10




        Authority.  Authority to lease state lands in Wyoming falls




under the State Board of Land Commissioners (WSA 36-14).  When con-




sidering a proposed lease, the Board of Land Commissioners can take




possible future uses of the land into consideration (WSA 36-34).




Leases issued by the Board of Land Commissioners may be terminated




if the approved rental is not paid, if the lease was obtained by




fraud, if the land is used for illegal purposes, or if the terms of



                       ?7
the lease are violated.    The Commissioner of Public Lands serves




as administrator for the State Board of Land Commissioners (WSA 36-34).




         The  State Board  of  Land  Commissioners  can require  a  change



 in the use of  lands  covered by specific leases (WSA 36-14).   It was held




 that  the Board  of Land Commissioners  did not abuse its discretionary




 authority when  it favored  one applicant  for a  lease of state  lands



 over  another on the  basis  of  the use  each applicant proposed.28




         The  State Land Use  Commission is charged  with  the  respon-




 sibility of  developing a  state land use  plan  (WSA 9-853[vii]).  The




 plan  is  to include an identification  of  areas  of  state concern




 (WSA  9-853[ix]).   This authority may  include the  responsibility




 to  consider  the uses to which state lands are  put.




         The  Department of Economic Planning and Development  (DEPAD)




has general  authority to conduct investigations concerning the use
        27Wyoming, Office of  the Commissioner of Public Lands, "Graz-


 ing and Agricultural Lease," August  6,  1970, Provision No. 9.


        00

          Howard v. Lindmier, 67 Wyo. 78, 214 P.2d. 737-
                                264

-------
of the state's resources (WSA 9-960.29).  This authority extends to




private activities affecting the public interest (WSA 9-160.29




[a][iii]).  DEPAD may offer financial assistance to specific projects




(WSA 9-160.29[a][iv]) and has the authority to acquire property by




eminent domain or other means (WSA 9-160.29[b][iii]).   If the proposed




action is defined as being in the best interests of the state of




Wyoming, its implementation may fall within the authority of the




Department of Economic Planning and Development.




        Finally, the State Planning Coordinator has the authority to




coordinate the activities of all state agencies.  This authority




extends to coordination of activities between state agencies and




the federal government (WSA 9-144.3).




         Current status.   There  are currently no state lands used for




 irrigated agriculture in the Colorado River  Basin  portion of Wyoming.




 Concerning leases of state land for grazing  activities,  the state can




 and does establish  livestock carrying capacities.  Leases may be revoked



if  these  carrying  capacities are not adhered  to.  Unfortunately, state




standards  are not  as  stringent as standards promulgated by  the Bureau




of Land Management for application on federal lands.^




         Changes of vegetation  on grazing lands, through  changes in




 forage crops or grubbing sagebrush,  may be considered improvements


             30
 to  the land.     If  so, improvements exceeding  $750 per section must
        29
          Interview with Al Wagner, Board of Land Commissioners, State

 Land Office, December 16, 1976.




          Wyoming, "Policy, Rules and Regulations for Grazing and

 Agricultural Lands," October 3, 1968, Section I.l.k.
                                 265

-------
be approved by the State Board of Land Commissioners prior to

construction or implementation. ^

        Potential feasibility.  At present the State Land Office is

developing a new state land lease form.  This lease is being developed in

order to provide water for use on state lands located within irrigation

districts.  At present, water moved onto state lands for irrigation be-

comes appurtenant to the lands.  The development of a new lease form

offers the opportunity for the provisions of the proposed action to

be included.    Were this to occur, the potential feasibility for

implementing the action would obviously be greatly enhanced.

        The new lease may be necessary because of proposals to begin

limited irrigation on state lands falling within the Colorado River

Basin.  This irrigation, which would be primarily sprinkler irri-

gation on haylands, would be controlled by the new lease.  If the new

lease form contained the provisions of the proposed action, salinity

resulting from both irrigated agriculture and grazing uses of state

lands could be controlled by the State Board of Land Commissioners.

At present, however, there is limited feasibility because of the lack

of stringent state rules and regulations.
                                                               Major
        Potential  Feasibility:     Feasible    Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                                       X
        Political                                    X
        Administrative                              X  	    	
       31
         Ibid.,  Section II.  2.d.
                                266

-------
ACTION
10. Administratively
modify leases of
state lands (at
time of lease or
renewal) to pro-
hibit agricultur-
al practices
which cause ero-
sion or excess
runoff of saline
water. This
would include
prohibition of
agriculture or
grazing on cer-
tain saline
soils and re-
striction of
grazing inten-
sity.



NJ
TV














































>-
H
^
O
c
<

























ARIZONA
37-102 (A)
State Land Depart-
ment administers
all state lands .
37-132 (A) (3)
State Land Commis-
sioner shall make
long-range plans
:or the use of
state lands (5)
Lease land for ag-
;riculture.
37-163(A)
Office of Environ-
mental Planning
shall keep data on
the comprehensive
land use plan.
(13) (2) Office
will coordinate
the plans and pro-
grams of all state
departments,
agencies and in-
strumentalities .
37-211 (A) State
Land Commissioner
to investigate
lands to determine
(2) usefulness for
grazing and (3)
lands susceptible
for agriculture .
37-212(B) State
Land Commissioner
to classify lands
(1) for agricul-
tural purposes .
(C) may reclassify
lands in best in-
terest of the
state.
37-372(A) State
Land Dept. may
(1) acquire lands
for agricultural
use, (2) exercise
eminent domain .

Nonspecific
CALIFORNIA
Gov. Code 65303(1)
General plan to
Include conserva-
tion of natural
resources, in-
cluding soils ,
and also (5) pre-
vention of erosion
and (6) protection
of watersheds.
Pub. R. Code 6201
State Lands
Commission to make
determination of
possible land
uses; may also re-
quire other state
agencies to make
such classifica-
tion.
Pub. R. Code 6216
(a) Commission has
authority to admin-
ister, sell, lease
or dispose of
public lands.
Pub. R. Code 6221
State agencies us-
ing state lands
COLORADO
36-1-113
Commission autho-
rized to lease any
sortion of state
lands.
36-1-118(1) State
iloard of Land Com-
missioners to con-
sider use of land
in making lease
conditions .
36-1-118(2) Care
and use of land in
promoting produc-
tivity to be con-
sidered in leases .

Vonspecific











subject to rules !
of Commission.
Application for
use must include



"environmental j
documents prepared
pursuant to the
Commission's rules
and regulations."

Nonspecific














1










NEVADA
321.700 Division
of State Lands to
ne land use plan-
ning agency.
321.720 Adminis-
trator of Division
of State Lands to
(3) identify areas
of critical envi-
ronmental concern
and (4) determine
suitability of
land for agri-
culture (b) also
(5) prepare suit-
ability of soil
type study and
(12) coordinate
all state and
local programs .
322.010 Adminis-
trator of Division
of State Lands
authorized to
lease state lands .
322.050(1) State
land leases may
be conditioned as
to purpose of the
lease.
548.355 Conserva-
tion districts
lave authority to
regulate vegeta-
tion and changes
in land use with
permission of land
occupant .

Nonspecific










NEW MEXICO
7-6-1 Commission-
er of Public Lands
to maintain data
on nature and
quality of state
lands. May clas-
sify lands re-
garding minerals
contained.
7-8-28 Commission-
er of Public Lands
authorized to
lease all lands
owned by the state.
7-8-30 Commission-
er to determine
carrying capacity
of lands in deter-
mining annual
rental rate.
7-8-53 Improve-
ments by lessee on
state owned land
limited to $10 per
acre for land im-
p r ovement s and
$1,000 for irriga-
tion systems .
7-8-19.2 Commis-
sioner to set
rules for ap-
purtenant water
rights.

Nonspecific















UTAH
65-1-1 Board of
State Lands creat-
ed as policy-making
body of Division
of State Lands.
65-1-2.1 Board of
State Lands di-
rects the Division
of State Lands.
65-1-3.1 Director
of Division of
State Lands ad-
ministers public
lands .
65-1-14 Board
determines state
policy re. state
land.
Board may also
lease lands for
the best interests
of the state.
65-1-44 Board may
condition grazing
leases and may
adop t rules and
regulations .
65-5-1 Division
of State Lands
may lease with
conditions , farm
lands acquired by
the state by
mortgage.

Nonspecific














WYOMING
9-144.3 State
Planning Coordi-
nator to coordinate
such activities of
all state agencies
and with the
federal government.
9-160.29 DEPAD
may make inves-
tigations re.
the resources of
the state (iii)
which may include
private works af-
fecting the public
interest and (iv)
may assist such pro-
jects financially
(b) (iii) may acquire
property by eminent
domain and other
means (ix) other
sowers needed to
carry out the act.
9-853 (vii) State
.and Use Commission
to develop land use
)lan (ix) to identify
areas of state con-
cern.
36-14 Board of Land
Commissioners has
authority to lease
state lands .
36-14 Board of Land
Commissioners can
force this change in
a land use in con-
trast for lease .
(Howard vs. Lindmier,
214 P2d 737.)
36-34 Administered by
the Commissioner of
'ublic Lands. Commis-
sioner of Public Lands
may consider future use
of land when review-
ing an application to
ease land.
Vonspecific

-------
ACTION
10. Administratively
modify leases of
s tate lands (at
time of lease or
renewal) to pro-
hibit agricultur-
al practices
which cause ero-
sion or excess
runoff of saline
water. This
would include
prohibition of
agriculture or
grazing on cer-
tain saline
soils and re-
striction of
grazing inten-
sity.


c/

a
/

NJ t
00 P




























ARIZONA
State Land Depart-
ment role limited —
only 30% of state
.ands can be af-
rected by state
action— 70% is
iederal or Indian
.and. Land
classed by use.
tost in grazing,
some irrigated
agriculture.
Groundwater be-
longs to the
surface owner,
i.e., the state.
Only groundwater
used in irrigated
agriculture .
Leases can be
conditioned.
Carrying capacity
for AUM's set by
] law. Most land
S in grazing.
5































CALIFORNIA
Land Transactions
Unit of the State
jand Commission
landles leases
of state lands .
Very little, if
any, irrigated
agricultural
state lands in
Colorado River
lasin . Uses of
state lands
can be limited;
would be included
.n provisions of
the lease.









































COLORADO
Board of Land Com-
missioners can
terminate lease of
state lands if
policies violated.
Previous land
management has
seen too passive .
Very little land
leased in the
Colorado River
Basin . Most of
state land in
the basin is used
for grazing.
Some irrigated
state land outside
the basin. State
owns any water
developed for the
land. Permits to
drill must be in
state's name.
Water transferred
to the land is
thereafter tied
to the land.
Leases can be
conditioned but
are not. Lessee
can grow anything.
Water rate for
irrigated land
based on water
needs of corn.
Needs on dry land
based on wheat .
With these quan-
tities of water,
the individual
can grow any-
thing that will
grow. All types
of leases can be
conditioned.
State Land Board
can take action to
stop abuses, e.g.,
overgrazing on
state lands .
Warning letter
effectively used;
no lease cancel-
lations have been
made in two years.
Checking limited
by understaf f ing.
NEVADA
State Planning
Coordinator sees
little real
coordination of
state , regional
and local plan-
ning. State Land
and Local Use
Planning does
not administer
lands in Colorado
River Basin unless
owned by another
state agency (are
none) . Most
state lands have
been sold, only
3,000 acres left.
What is left is
not good land .
There has been a
moratorium on the
sale and lease
of state lands
since 1965. New
interest develop-
ing because of
energy development
possibilities .




























NEW MEXICO
The Natural Re-
sources Conserva—
using Technology
Application Center
to use satellites
to survey soil
types and, in
coordination with
208 committee, to
develop sediment
source control pro-
gram. Leases is-
sued by the State
Land Office. Indi-
vidual owns the wa-
ter, both surface
and subsurface .
las right to bene-
ficial use during
term of lease.
Agricultural land
Lease development
Left to individual.
Leases can be con-
ditioned. Grazing
Limits determined by
using S.C.S. soil
types . Types are
also used to deter-
nine if land can
be put under irri-
gation. Field
agents can also
determine carrying
capacity. State
..and Office can re-
quire changes in
agricultural prac-
tices on leased
state land but has
lot done so to re-
duce salinity from
overgrazing.













UTAH
^ain lease is for

considered a
special use . Only
six (approx. )
tracts of state
land in irrigated
agriculture .
Individual brings
via transfer or
purchase of
shares in an
Irrigation dis-
trict . Lease
can be condi-
tioned. If indi-
vidual agrees to
drill well on
Leased land , wa-
ter belongs to
the state . Most
Land is used for
grazing.































WYOMING
Lessee provides
su ace
New lease being
developed to
provide water for
state lands in
irrigation districts.
If adjudicated
during lease, water
generally s tay s
with land after
lease. State does
set carrying capacity
and can revoke
lease for abuse.
Not as stringent
as BLM. Different
lease for grazing,
croplands and spe-
cial uses. Leases
can be provisioned.
State Land Board
approves all leases.
Land primarily
used for grazing.
































-------
ACTION
10. Administratively
modify leases of
state lands (at
time of lease or
renewal) to pro-
hibit agricultur-
al practices
which cause ero-
sion or excess
runoff of saline
water. This
would include
prohibition of
agriculture or
grazing on cer-
tain saline
soils and re-
striction of
grazing inten-
sity .



to
S> £

I
/
.


























ARIZONA
In Arizona, 70 per-
cent of the land is
controlled by the
:ederal government
or Indian tribes .
Only 13 percent of
the state land
area is in the
state land trust.
"his may be too lit-
tle land to justify
some state ac-
tions. Some vege-
tation modification
being conducted by
the Bureau of Land
Management . No
leases can be modi-
fied during term
without consent of
both the State Land
Commission and the
lessee. Leases
conflicting with
reclassif ication of
i lands by Commission
a are cancelled . Re :
5 agricultural
•j leases — acts which
"* jeopardize the land
2 or water rights of
j the state are
j grounds for termi-
3 nating the lease;
11 removal of plants
protected by the
Arizona native
plant law requires
prior permission
from the State Land
Department and the
Commission of Agri-
culture and Horti-
culture. Re:
grazing leases —
waste on land is
grounds for termi-
nating the lease;
permission must be
obtained to exceed
grazing capacity;
reimbursement for
the cost of eradi-
cation of "noxious
(continued)
CALIFORNIA
There is little,
Lf any state land
Leased for either
agriculture or
grazing purposes
Ln the Colorado
River Basin. It
would appear that
COLORADO
Surface leases al-
low for both agri-
cultural and graz-
ing uses. Rental
rates are deter-
mined by the car-
rying capacity of
grazing lands and
state land leas- the productive
Lng policies i capacity of agri-
would have no im- > cultural lands .
pact on Colorado
liver salinity.
'revisions con-
cerning the dis-
cretionary autho-
rity of the State
^ands Commission
in the California
Administrative
Code could serve
as a model for
Grazing leases can
be terminated upon
an application to
convert the land
to agricultural
("higher") use.
Failure to use
good soil conser-
vation practices
or overgrazing may
result in termina-
other Basin i tion of a lease on
states.



























LO days notice.
Fhe State Land
Board may make ex-
ceptions to rules
in unusual situa-
tions . Potential
exists to condi-
tionally lease
grazing lands. Of
counties totally
or partially in
the Colorado River
Basin, 431,847
acres are leased
for grazing while
only 11,115 acres
are leased for
agriculture. The
State Land Board
must exercise a
more active role
as manager of
state lands .











	
NEVADA
Very little land
remains in state
ownership . Those
lands remaining
are not good qual-
ity lands. The
1965 leasing mora-
torium is still in
effect and, ac-
cording to the
Attorney General's
Office , "until and
unless the legis-
lature removes the
moritorium it is
recommended that
no leases of any
kind be entered
into." Until that
time, there is no
real potential in
Nevada for this
type of action.







NEW MEXICO
Most of state
lands are leased
for grazing ,
though there are
some agricultural
leases . Both
grazing carrying
capacity and the
suitability of
land for irrigated
agriculture are
determined by Soil
Conservation Ser-
vice soil classi-
fications. Rental
is determined for
grazing lands , in
part by carrying
capacity. The
Commissioner of
Public Lands is
allowed discre-
tion in condition-
ing leases and
may cancel a
lease if its
"terms , covenants
or conditions" are
violated . Devel-
opment under a
'lease is usually
left to the indi-
kridual , however ,
on the theory that
jonly the individ-
ual knows his eco-
nomic capabilities',
lUnder such a
[theory, imple-
mentation of the















proposed action
would be uncer-
tain.











UTAH
Little state land
is used for agri-
culture which re-
quires a special
use lease. Under
such special use
leases, the lessee
must apply approved
crop management
practices. Under a
grazing lease, the
State Land Board
can determine both
the "number and
kinds of livestock"
and the ''number of
days and seasons of
the year" when
grazing is allowed.
Grazing lessees
must comply with
good conservation
practices and not
cause waste by im-
proper grazing.
Lessee is also to
"safeguard" water
and other surface
resources and com-
ply with the states
requirements con-
cerning conserva-
tion practices.
Leases may be can-
celled if any
"term or condition"
is violated. High-
er uses (commercial,
industrial and
residential) may
preempt agricultur-
al (special use)
and grazing
leases . Potential
for implementation
in Utah will be a
function of the at-
titude of the State
Land Board toward
conditional leases ,
stricter enforce-
WYOMING
At present,
there is no irri-
gated agricultural
state land in the
Colorado River
Basin. Sprinkler
systems on hay-
lands have , how-
ever, been proposed.
Both Grazing and
Agricultural leases
utilize the same
basic lease form.
Improvements to
the land may in-
clude the costs
of changing vege-
tation ("grubbing
sagebrush") , Im-
provements in ex-
cess of $750.007
section must be
approved in ad-
vance by the State
Land Office.
Leases may be
conditioned by the
State Land Office
and will be can-
celled if the con-
ditions of the
Lease are violated.
State standards
:or grazing lands ,
lowever, are not as
stringent as those
developed by the
lureau of Land
Management . Po-
tential for imple-
mentation is
dependent on the
approach to re-
source conserva-
tion taken by the
State Land Office.





ment of existing
rules and regula-
tions, and the
1 (continued)

-------
ACTION
10. Administratively
modify leases of
state lands (at
time of lease or
renewal ) to pro-
hibit agricultur-
al practices
which cause ero-
sion or excess
runoff of saline
water. This
would include
prohibition of
agriculture or
grazing on cer-
tain saline ,-
soils and re- 1
striction of £
grazing inten- T
sity. I
-J 0
O H
O


ARIZONA
growth" on grazing
lands can be amor-
tized at 10
percent per annum.
Though there is
little potential
for direct state
action, there
exists the possi-
bility for condi-
tional leases
depending on the
attitude of the
State Land Com-
mission.








c
•

CALIFORNIA
























i
I
COLORADO

























NEVADA

























NEW MEXICO

























UTAH
promulgation of
requests and
requirements .






















WYOMING


























-------
   11.  To reduce salinity from municipal sources, regulate
        salt loading appliances such as water softeners.

        Background of the action.  This action has been classified

"feasible—but of limited applicability" because of the generally

limited contribution of salt loading appliances to the salt load in

the Colorado River.  Home water softeners, used to reduce the mineral

hardness of water supplies, are recharged periodically by an ion ex-

change process, using a concentrated solution of common table salt.

After recharge, the used salt is discharged to the sewer system.  Regu-

lation can be accomplished in any of three ways:  water can be centrally

softened; regeneration of softening systems can be handled centrally by

exchange of cylinders; or on-site regenerative salt use efficiency can

be optimized.  The first two options provide administrative control

over salt loads, avoiding disposal that will return to the river; while

salt use efficiency provides savings in salt costs as well as a reduction

in (but not elimination of) salt loading.   Because of the relative hard-
                  2
ness of the water,  water softeners are most used in Nevada and Cali-

fornia among the basin states.  In Arizona, because bottled water is

commonly used instead of household water softeners and because municipal

wastewater is consumed by downstream agriculture or by municipal irrigation

of parks rather than returned to the Colorado River, state officials

do not consider salt loading appliances to be a significant salinity

problem.
         R.W. Beck and Associates - Brown and Caldwell, Clark County
Areawide Salinity Control Investigation, Las Vegas, 1976, p. 89.
        2
         See p. 34, Chapter III.
                                 271

-------
        Dr.  Bert Keilin, of the Pacific Water Conditioning Association,


Inc., states that water softeners, in all of the Colorado River Basin


municipalities combined, contribute less than 1.7 pptn of a total JoadLng


(1972) of 879 ppm measured at Imperial Dam.  He also states that it


has been an industry practice to over-salt in the interests of


reducing customer complaints and potential service calls; and that


self-regulation in the  industry is beginning to provide more efficient


water softening and regeneration settings.  It should also be noted


that in extremely hard water areas, elimination of home water soften-


ing, without some alternative softening, would reduce salinity but


increase other mineral loading because of the resulting increase in

                                3
the use of soaps and detergents.   The Clark County, Nevada, investigation


of central softening fixes the average household cost of such a system


at about 70c per month  (i.e., $2.50/month direct cost less $1.80/month

                                 4
savings in soaps and detergents).


        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum found that the


historical contribution of salt loads from municipal and industrial


sources has been minor, averaging less than 1.5 percent of the total


load in the Colorado at Imperial Dam.  The only exception has been the


concentrated returns from the Las Vegas, Nevada area.   Because salt
        3Ibid., p. 113

        4
         R.W. Beck, et al., Clark County Investigation, p. 154.


         Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, "Proposed Water
Quality Standards for Salinity Including Numeric Criteria and Plans
of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System,"
June 1975,  p. 16.
                                 272

-------
loading appliances are not yet a significant source of salinity in most




parts of the Colorado River Basin, Action #11 is presented as a potential




action which cities, counties or even states have the ability to implement




locally when the need arises.
                                   273

-------
ARIZONA—Action #11

        Agency responsible and legal authority.  In Arizona, needed

action may appropriately be taken by cities and counties.  Mr. Peter

Gulatto, Assistant Attorney General, stated in an October 7, 1976

interview that the cities or the counties could control salt loading

appliances under present law.  The state also may enforce controls in

the future, as the Arizona Department of Health, Water Quality Control

Council, with the cooperation of Colorado River Salinity Control Forum,

is formulating salinity control policies which may regulate such

appliances.  Under such circumstances the NPDES permit system will

become the regulatory tool (ARS 36-1859).  Other action could be taken

under the general powers of the Department of Health to control water

pollution (ARS 36-3852) .

        Current status.  Arizona officials have not identified salt

loading appliances as an actionable problem.  In the potential problem

area along the Colorado River mainstern the water is so mineralized

that most of the population is drinking bottled water rather than using

residential water softeners.   Additionally, those same communities, in

order to avoid applying for and complying with NPDES permits, are gener-

ally reusing their wastewater, in nonpotable uses such as park and golf

course irrigation, with no returns to the river.

        Potential feasibility.  At the present time, state officials see

no need for a salt loading appliance regulatory program in Arizona.
         Interview with Bill Shafer, Water Quality Control Bureau,
Phoenix, October 6, 1976.
                                 274

-------
Should the need arise,  the governmental authority exists.  However,

the political costs of  regulating in-home appliances are currently

considered too great.   Should the need for Action #11 become apparent,

the feasibility in Arizona would be:
                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                          X
        Political                                    X
        Administrative                  X
                                275

-------
 CALIFORNIA—Action #11

        Agency responsible and legal authority.   The  Regional Water

Quality Control Boards have the primary responsibility for controlling

water quality (WC 13001).  However, cities and counties have the author-

ity to promulgate and enforce regulations stricter than those mandated

by the state (WC 13002).  Thus, although the statutes are silent in

 regard to regulating salt loading appliances, authority to act is

 available.

        Current Status.  In its water quality control plan, the

Colorado River Basin Region Board has recognized the potential problem

 by requesting local ordinances "prohibiting discharge of water

 softener regeneration brines" into municipal waste treatment systems.

 The Water Quality Control Board executive officer for this region has

 stated that he will allow softener plant discharge into the Salton Sea,

 and nowhere else.

        The authority given to cities and counties has proven sig-

 nificant in that several California communities have totally prohibited

 discharge of water softener regeneration in an effort to meet state
                                 Q
 water quality control standards.

        Potential feasibility.   The potential salt loading

problems from water softening have been recognized in California,
        ''California,  Regional  Water  Quality  Control  Board,  Water Quality
Control Plan Report:   East  Colorado  River  Basin  [7B],  Sacramento:   State
of California,  1975,  p.  1-5-21.
        Q
         R.W. Beck, et al., Clark County Investigation, p.  112.
                                  276

-------
For more than three years, discharge of water softening brine

to surface or groundwater areas draining into the Colorado

River has been prohibited.          The Metropolitan Water District

(MWD) of Southern California at one time centrally softened Colorado

River water, although it instead now operates a facility which blends

that water with higher quality California water.  Central softening is

again being considered by the MWD, with a direct household cost of

$0.80 to $1.25 per month plus an undetermined concurrent savings in
                     9
soaps and detergents.

        Because central softening has been used in California, its

feasibility for the future is enhanced.  Control of operation of home

units is more difficult because of political and administrative problems,

                                                                 Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                     X
        Administrative	X	

California has acted and has the ability to act further should the

need arise.
        9
         Interview with Ernest Weber,  Assistant Chief Engineer,
Colorado River Board of California,  Los Angeles, July 5, 1977.
                                277

-------
COLORADO—Action #11

        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The Colorado Water

Quality Control Commission has broad authority to achieve and maintain

water quality (CRS 25-8-202).   This authority can be used in conjunction

with the discharge permit powers of the Water Quality Control Division

(CRS 25-8-501).

        Current status.  Due to the high quality of water in the Colorado

River Basin area of Colorado,  very few home water softeners are used,

and State water quality officials do not identify salt loading appliances

as a problem in Colorado.  They feel that home water softeners would pre-

sent an impossible policing problem.  However, the permit authority and

possible pre-treatment requirements would provide adequate protection

against any regeneration plant discharges.

        Potential feasibility.  There have been no plans for the

application of the NPDES permit system to salt loading applicances.

Should Colorado need to implement this action, only central softening

and regeneration plant control would be considered, thus providing a

favorable enforcement environment.
                                                                    Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible 	Questionable    Obstacle
        Legal                          X
        Political                      X
        Administrative                 X             	
                                 278

-------
 NEVADA—Action #11



        Agency responsible and legal authority.   In Nevada,  county and



 local  authorities  are taking primary responsibility for control of water



 softeners.   Clark  County,  Nevada is the one area of the Colorado River



 Basin  in  which serious study of salt contributions from water  softening has


 been made.   Although the state's Environmental Protection Services has


 any incidental powers necessary for achieving or maintaining water


 quality (NRS 445.214,[12]), most of the Clark County approach  has been


 in terms  of local  ordinances and public education programs.



        Current status.  Within the metropolitan area of Las Vegas Valley



 (Clark County)  water supply is critical and per  capita use is  greater

                           10
 than the  national  average.     In addition,  the state water plan calls  for



 vigorous  pursuit of  salinity and water quality controls for  the Colorado


 River  Basin by both  state  and local agencies.


        In response  to the  lack of water, problems in water quality,



and federal and state mandates concerning salinity, the Clark County


Commissioners contracted for the previously cited Clark County Area-



wide Salinity Control Investigation.  Much of the study centered on


the salt load to the wastewater system contributed by home and com-


mercial users of water softeners.  Alternative plans ranged from no
        10Nevada,  Colorado  River  Commission of,  "1966-1971 Report,"

Las Vegas,  1972,  p.15.


        H-Roland  D.  Westergard,  State Engineer,  "Special Summary

Report, Nevada State Water Plan,"  Carson City:   State Printing

Office, 1974, p.14.
                                 279

-------
action to total prohibition of water conditioning waste additions




 to the system.  Within this range were included  limitations  on  the  size




 of water conditioners, improvement of salt use efficiency, central




 softening of all public water or of Colorado River water, control of




 groundwater infiltration in the wastewater system, and partial  demineral-



                      12
 ization of wastewater.




        Potential feasibility.  The Beck et al.  study recommends only




 a limited salinity control program, involving four components:  (1)




 minimizing the amount of saline groundwater allowed to enter the waste-




 water systems; (2) registration of water softening equipment and a  public




 education program to encourage residential users to optimize salt use




 efficiency; (3) a requirement for submission of  technical reports stating




 that commercial water conditioning equipment complies with guidelines;




 and  (4) that the cost-effectiveness of centrally softening Colorado River


                                  10

 water be reevaluated in 1985-1990.    Not only is this considered by




 Beck et al. as the most cost-feasible approach and the easiest  to implement,




 but since the central softening of Colorado River water is delayed  until




 it is expected to become cost-effective, there has been some public




 support for this alternative, including support by the water softening




 industry.    The cost of this combination alternative within the study




 area would be approximately $3.7 to $4.9 million per year, providing a
        1 7
        x R. W. Beck,  et al.,  Clark County Investigation, p. 145.




        13Ibid.,  pp.  142,  150.




        14Ibid.,  pp.  H-2,3.
                                 280

-------
benefit-cost  ratio  exceeded  only by the  no  action alternative.15  Central

softening  of  Colorado  River  water has  a  slightly lower  per household

cost of  $2.50 per month  which  is further offset  by a  $1.80 monthly savings

in  excess  cleaning  products.   However, a delay in implementation until

1985-1990  followed  by  reevaluation,  is recommended because of the high
              16
capital  costs.

        At the time of writing (March 1977)  Clark County is commencing

hearings on methods for handling water softening  equipment.   The

proposals would either provide ordinances or management plans to control

commercial users,  combined with an education program to reach home users

of water softeners.   Some control will be exercised, but the extent is

no t ye t k nown.

        As  the plan is  envisioned, the feasibility would be:
                                                                Major
        Potential  Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable     Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                             X
        Administrative          	X	
       15Ibid., pp. 144, 149-

       16Ibid., p.  154.
                                    281

-------
NEW MEXICO—Action

        Agency responsibile and  legal authority.  The New Mexico

Water Quality Control  Commission is  given responsibility for water

quality control  (NMSA  75-39-4).   Although performance standards may

be set, the Commission may not specify  the method to be used to abate

water pollution.

        Current status.  Although salt loading appliances  are point-

source contributors, they have not been identified by state water

officials  as a problem in New Mexico.  Any potential problems are theught

to be far  in the future,  with the possible exception of Albuquerque (which

is not in  the Colorado River Basin).   It is felt that water quality re-

gulations  and the NPDES permit system would be able to handle any problems

which might arise.

        Potential feasibility.  Because of the lack of any identifiable

problem in New Mexico,  combined with lack of authority of  state officials

to specify abatement methods,  potential feasibility appears doubtful.
                                                                  Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                                                       X
        Political                                    X
        Administrative                	X
                                282

-------
 UTAH—Action #11


        Agency responsible and legal authority.  The Utah Division

of Health is the designated water quality agency of the state, working

through the Water Pollution Control Board.  UCA 26-15-5 empowers

the Board of Health to set minimum sanitary standards for the quality

of water and the quality of effluent discharge.  UCA 73-14-5 declares

that pollution is a public nuisance controlled by discharge permits.

        Current status.  Utah has not obtained responsibility for

issuing NPDES permits, but does work jointly with EPA in determining

the conditions of each permit.  The end result is a more stringent

regulation than would be achieved by permits issued solely by IPA.

Thus, while there is no evidence of brine in the sewer systems,  should

a problem from salt loading appliances arise it is felt that the NPDES

permit system would control any discharge.  At the present time  no

action in this area is contemplated.

        Potential  feasibility.  Utah water  quality officials are  alert

 to  the potential problem,  thus  increasing the  feasibility of implementation

 should the need arise.
                                                                  Major
        Potential  Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
        Legal                         X
        Political                            X
        Administrative                X 	
                                 283

-------
 WYOMING—Action #11


        Agency responsible  and  legal  authority.   The Wyoming Department

of Environmental Quality, Water Quality  Division  is mandated to protect

and enhance  the State's water quality (WSA 35-502.2).  To  this end,

no discharge of any  pollution or wastes  may be made into state waters

without a permit  (WSA 35-502.18).

        Current status.   Contamination from salt  loading appliances

has not been identified as  a problem  in  Wyoming.   It is anticipated

that,  should a problem arise, the NPDES  permit system will adequately

handle the situation.  Discharge from the  central  softening plant

serving Rock Springs  and  Green  River  has been fully contained for

the past two years.

         Potential feasibility.   Wyoming  is poised to  act  on  any  arising

problems,  thus  increasing the fasibility  of this  action.
                                                                  Major
         Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
         Legal                          X
         Political                     X
         Administrative                X
                                 284

-------
ACTION
11 . To reduce
salinity from
municipal sources ,
regulate salt
loading appliances
such as water
softeners.

















00
Ln

























>-<
^
2
o











n
^
33
in
g
5
3
^









fH
E-
£
tf
^
fi
I-
g
ft
g
ARIZONA
ARS 36-1852
The Dept. of
iealth is the
state water pol-
lution control
agency and is au-
thorized to take
sary .
ARS 36-1859 Permit
powers .

General



Cities and
counties have
authority, but there
is no problem along
the Colorado.
Cities are con-
sumptively reusing
water in nonpo table
areas to avoid
discharge permits .





Cost is feasible,
but politico-
social implications
may be great.
Generally, no pro-
gram is under con-
sideration at this
time.







CALIFORNIA
WC 13002
No limit on city or
county to have
better or stricter
regulations than
state on water
quality control or
pollution .
WC 13001 Regional
Water Quality Con-
trol Boards have
water quality
authority .

General
Could take action
if needed. Ventura
County passed pro-
hibition of home
softeners which was
never enforced and
was later aban-

doned . MO sot tener
discharge is contem-
plated in the CRB.
Policy is to dis-
charge x^ater soften-
er regeneration
wastes ,

Program is contro-
versial and some-
times hard to en-
force. But it is
working in several
areas and could be
extended if reason-
able cost-benefit
is demonstrated.
MWD may begin to
centrally soften
Colorado River Water
once again.


COLORADO
CRS 25-8-202
General authority
to achieve water
quality, combined
with CRS 25-8-501
permit power,
broadly enables
the Water Quality
Control Commission
and Division to
take action if
needed.

General


Not now regulated
but could be
regulated by per-
mit if necessary.
Softener regener-
ation plants can
be handled but

home so r tener s
would present an
impossible
policing problem.
Few softeners
are in use.


Educational pro-
gram will be un-
dertaken. Regu-
lation is current-
ly bearing high
political costs,
and resulting pro-
gram is unknown.
Need definite
problem before
any action.




NEVADA
NRS 445.214 (12)
Any incidental
powers necessary
for achieving or
maintaining wa-
ter quality are
given to the
Environmental
Protection Ser-
vices. County
and municipal
ordinances and
educational pro-
grams may also
be used.
General
Las Vegas is go-
ing to exercise
some control on
commercial users,
with an educa-
tion program for
residential us-

1T S . KeSUJ-tS
will be less
than formerly
anticipated.
learings are be-
ing held, and
there may be no
formal control.
NPDES permit
control is a
reasonable ,
fairly easy to
extend approach
to the problem,
should it occur .
May pass some
county ordi-
nances in Clark
County.




NEW MEXICO
NMSA 75-39-4
gives authority
to Water Duality
Control Cornels-'
siori to control
water pollution.


NMSA 75-39-4. e
authorizes
Agency to issue
discharge per-
mits .

General
Not now regulated.
There is no con-
cern or mention
under present
regulations . And
no problem is
anticipated, al-

tnougn permits
and regulations
could handle any
anticipated
situation.



NPDES permit
control is a
reasonable
approach to the
problem, should
it occur. No
action contem-
plated in for-
seeable future.






UTAH
UCA 26-15-5
Gives the Board
of Health power
to set minimum
sanitary standards
for the quality of
water , and efflu-
ent and trade
waste discharges.
UCA 73-14.5
gives the Water
Pollution Control
Board power to is-
sue discharge
permits .
General
There is no evi-
dence of brine in
sewer sys terns and
no action is con-
templated. NPDES
permits would
handle problem








^o action is con-
templated at the
present time .
STPDES permit con-
trol is a reason-
able, fairly easy
to extend approach
to the problem,
should it occur.






WYOMING
WSA 35.502.18
Permits can be
required by the
Depart, of Environ-
mental Health
after consulta-
tion with the
and can be used
in control of salt
loading appliances.

General



One central softening
plant is now regulated
Permits for municipal
plants could handle,
should a problem occur
but none is currently
foreseen.








NPDES permit
control is a
reasonable,
fairly easy to
extend approach
to the problem,
should it occur,
and is being
planned for at
least one potential
industry polluter.





-------
    12.  To reduce  salinity  from industrial  sources,  require
        reuse of wastewater to  reduce industrial  water  demand.

        Background of  the action.   Water reuse is a  fact  of  life  in  the

 seven Colorado  River Basin  states.   It has  been pointed out  correctly  that

 almost all Colorado River water is  reused by downstream appropriators

 as  it passes through the system.  The 1896-1974 average virgin  flow  of

 the Colorado River, measured at Lee Ferry,  is 14.9 maf  (million

 acre-feet).   The  estimated annual  evaporation and natural stream

 loss is 1.9 maf2 and deliveries to  Mexico total 1.5  maf.   Thus,

 without any other  considerations, only 11.5 maf remain  available

 for use in the  U.S. portion of  the  Colorado River Basin.  In 1970,

 withdrawals from the river  totalled 17.2 maf.   With 14.9 maf virgin

 flow there is an apparent shortage  of 2.3 maf.  Taking  evaporation and

 the Mexican commitment  into consideration the shortfall is 5.7  maf.

 Some of the shortfall  is made up  from mining groundwater,  yet  the

 magnitude of the shortfall  is prima facie evidence that reuse is

 occurring in the Colorado River Basin,  and  that consumptive  use does

 not equal withdrawals.
         Colorado River  Basin  Salinity  Control Forum, Proposed Water
Quality Standards for  Salinity Including Numeric Criteria and Plan
of Implementation for  Salinity Control, Denver:  October 1975, p. 28.

        2Ibid., p. 27.

        3"Minute No. 242," Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 15,
No. 1, January 1975, p.  2.

         National Water  Commission, Water Policies  for the Future,
Washington, B.C.:  Government  Printing  Office, June 1973, p. 9.

        -'Water Resources Council, The Nation's Water Resources,
Washington, D.C.:  Government  Printing  Office, 1968, pp. 1-6-13-6,
6-14-5.
                                  286

-------
        The existing de facto water reuse system is based primarily

on agricultural, municipal and industrial return flows.  To be effective,

proposed changes in existing reuse patterns must overcome numerous

legal barriers.

        Courts have held that downstream users, junior as well as

senior water right holders, can both rely on existing return flows

and protect their interests in such sources.

        The general rule appears to be that irrigation return flows,

as opposed to wastewaters, cannot be recaptured by individuals.

The distinction between wastewaters and return flows is critical

in that the capture and reuse of wastewater is allowed in several

              8
jurisdictions.

        As a general rule, junior appropriators can prohibit changes

in use by senior appropriators which adversely affect the junior

appropriator's right.   This could prohibit private reuse of water

which alters existing return flow patterns.  Were the reuse program

implemented by a public agency, downstream users may require compen-

sation as changes in reuse patterms which adversely affect existing

entitlements may constitute a "taking" of property.
         George E. Radosevich and Gaylord V. Skogerboe, Achieving
Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control Through Improved Legal Systems,
Fort Collins:  Resources Development and Administration, Inc., April
1977 draft report, p. VI-34.

        7Ibid.

        8Ibid.
        9
        Radosevich at VI-34.
                                 287

-------
        In terms of quantities of water  to be reused, there appears to

be precedent that municipalities may  reuse water which has been trans-

ptirted into the specific  river basin.    Reuse would appear to be possible

 if downstream flows, less traditional consumptive uses and quantities

 imported into the basin, are not adversely affected.-*-   This conclusion

 would apply to both public and private  reuse.  Within these constraints,

 reuse would appear to be feasible.

        This action, which has been classified "partially underway—

extension feasible," addresses itself  to more specific aspects of

water reuse; especially to those which have arisen as a result of the

no-salt return standards  being applied to the river.  A "Policy for

Implementation of the Colorado River  Salinity Standards Through the

NPDES Permit Program" was adopted by  the Colorado River Salinity

Control Forum on February 28, 1977.  The policy, which has been

accepted by EPA, amplifies the standards for industrial and

municipal sources of salinity.  The goal for industry is "a no-salt

return policy whenever practicable," and is the policy for all

new industrial sources.

        Some types of reuse included in  this action are recycling

of wastewater within an industrial plant, diversion of highly saline

waters,  from natural or agricultural sources,  for certain industrial uses;

and use of wastewater treatment plant effluent for industrial purposes.

Not only will these forms of water reuse reduce industrial demands on high
       10Pulaski Irrigating Ditch Co. v. Trinidad, 70 Colo. 565, 203
Poe. 681 (1922); Denver v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 179 Colo. 47,
506 P.2d. 144 (1972).

           Such  adverse effects would include timing of stream flows
 (when  a  seasonal use is altered to  be used year round),  change in  total
 rate of  flow, and change in  quantities (and perhaps qualities) of
 return flows.                     288

-------
quality water supplies, they also will alleviate some problems in




the NPDES permit system by eliminating some portion of undesirable




discharges to the river.  The action contemplates that water either




would be reused to total consumption,  or reused until it becomes unsuitable




for further industrial use and then disposed of in an evaporation pond.




Such reuse will make more efficient use of scarce water, and thus will




help effectuate the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum's policy of




no salt return to the river wherever practicable.
                                 289

-------
 ARIZONA—Action #12


          Agency responsible and legal authority.  The only legal

reference to water reuse is found in the statutory guideline that the

Arizona Water Quality Control Council should adhere to the principle

that reuse of water is a beneficial use (ARS 36-1854.B).  Should

industrial reuse of water become a requirement, the State Land Department's

Water Division (which is responsible for controlling water allocation)

would probably have to join the Water Quality Control Council in a reuse

program.

          Current  status.  Although Arizona has no formal reuse program,

water  reuse  is a well-developed  practice.  Most municipal effluent is

                                                                        12
 reused for  agricultural or recreational (golf courses,  etc.)  irrigation,

while  agricultural return flow is  reused  to  consumption in  much  of  the

 state.13  Much  of  the state's industrial  development is in  mining, which

already recycles  its  sewage and process water.    In addition,  the  1976

water  quality plan for the Colorado  River Basin  emphasizes  reuse  of

 treated wastewater through irrigation and industrial users.

          Arizona  already practices  reuse and encourages further  applica-

 tion of reuse in  industry, and in  recreational and agricultural  irrigation.
          1 9
           Arizona,  State of,  Phase I,  Arizona State Water Plan,  Inven-
 tory  of  Resource  and Uses,  July 1975,  p.  142.

           Reed Teeples,  Salt  River Project.   Interview,  October  7,  1976.

           Phase  I,  Arizona State Water Plan,  op.  cit.,  p. 96.

           Arizona Department  of Health Services,  by Earl V.  Miller
 Engineers  and Metcalf and Eddy,  Inc./Engineers,  Water Quality Manage-
 ment  Plan; Colorado  Main  Stem  River Basin,  Arizona,  1976; pp. 2-11.
                                   290

-------
Power plant use of municipal effluent is currently under discussion;




and the major problem is lack of available effluent, not whether or not




to use it.  Since reuse of water is considered beneficial and necessary,




further encouragement is offered in that consumptive reuse avoids the




need for industries to obtain discharge permits.




          Potential feasibility.  Arizona has a traditional and wide-




spread water reuse program.   Although not required  by law,  it is encouraged.




The quality of such water is covered  by the rules and regulations of the




Water Quality Control Council.   No further action  seems necessary




at this time.
                                 291

-------
 CALIFORNIA—Action #12



          Agency responsible and legal authority.  The Department of


Water Resources, in conjunction with the Water Quality Control Board,


has responsibility for implementing the state policy to reclaim and


reuse water  (WC 13510 to 13540).  Such reclamation is considered neces-


sary as well as beneficial, and Chapter 7, Water Reclamation, provides


state financial aid for projects (WC 13511, WC 13515).


          Current status.  Because of a growing shortage of water, Cali-


fornia is close to requiring nonpotable reuse of water, and is sponsoring


ongoing research into reclamation methods and applications of reclaimed

       16
 water.   Most water reuse is in the area of recreational and agricultural


 irrigation.  However, Kaiser Steel Corporation has been reusing sanitary

                                                                    17
 and process wastewater at its Fontana, California plant since 1942.


 During FY 1973 over 80,000 acre-feet of wastewater in Southern California


 was reused, primarily for "irrigation and industrial purposes, recreation

                                  18
 lakes, and groundwater recharge."    The state has additionally mandated


 that inland power plants use low quality water for cooling purposes.


         Potential feasibility.  In addition to exploring the public


 resistance involved in water reuse (which resistance is being over-
        •^California, Department of Water Resources, "Reclamation of
 Water from Wastes in Southern California,"  Sacramento:  State of

 California, November 1975, Bulletin No. 80-5.
        17Ibid., p.  8.


        18Ibid., p.  27.
                                  292

-------
                                                           19
come by familiarity with reuse programs already underway),    the  state


has explored the cost of water reclamation compared to developing other


water supplied.  Advanced wastewater treatment with chemical  coagulation

                                 20
would cost $318.00 per acre foot.    The costs of in-house industrial


reuse have not been estimated, but it is assumed that such use would


become more economically attractive as fresh water costs  increase and


discharge permits become more stringent.


        It is considered that water reuse will provide an even greater


share of supplemental water in Southern California although Colorado


River allocations are already fully utilized.  To this end, further


study of technical problems is being pursued and markets for reclaimed


water are being identified.  No action is necessary.
           Ibid.,  p.  25.   The cost will vary somewhat according to the
 quality of water  treated,  and its intended use.


         20Ibid.,  p.  22.
                                 293

-------
COLORADO—Action #12

         AggS.9Y.JF.e_sj&gggjj?lg_J-.ggl. legal authority.  The Water Quality

Control Commission  has  general  authority  to  develop  and  maintain a

program for  the  prevention,  control and abatement  of water pollution,

and for the  protection  of water quality  (CRS 25-8-202[l]).   While

the water quality statutes contain  no specific  encouragement or  pro-

hibition of water reuse, this general authority could be,  and has  been,

used in conjuction with the  Commission's  permit powers (CRS 25-8-501)

to encourage and enable water reuse.

         Current status.  Most industrial wastewater in Colorado is

 discharged into municipal collection systems,  with pretreatment

 required whenever necessary to meet quality standards.   However,

 many  industrial concerns have installed nearly complete recycling

systems,     and  such systems are encouraged  by  the state.   Because of

zero discharge requirements  upon new industrial facilities, power  plants

are also looking to water reuse both to reduce  their water  needs  and

to minimize  their problem of effluent disposal.  A large number  of

the mining and milling  operations have already  installed water recycling

        22
systems.

        Potential feasibility.  Reuse or  recycling is one  way to help

assure an adequate  water supply, to avoid many  of  the problems associated
       01
         Colorado Department  of  Health,  Water  Quality  Control
Division, "FY-1975 Report  to  the Water Quality Control Commission,"
Denver:  October 1, 1975,  p.  34.
       22
         Ibid., p. 35.
                                 294

-------
with discharge permits, and to alleviate the rising costs of fresh

water supplies.  The state would benefit by encouraging reuse, and

supporting technological research to broaden industrial applications of

recycled water.  Supplies derived from wastewater should be included in

future planning and as a part of the Colorado Water Policy now under

development.

                                                                 Major
        Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable    Obstacles
        Legal                         X
        Political                     X
        Administrative                X
                                 295

-------
NEVADA—Action #12




        Agency responsible and legal authority.  In Nevada, water is




regulated administratively rather than by specific statute.  However,




secondary use of effluent does require the filing of a claim and receipt




of a permit from the State Engineer  (NRS 533.325 to 533.435).  The State




Engineer also has the duty to develop a comprehensive water resource




plan for the state  (NRS 532.165[1])-  Thus, allocation and planning




functions of the State Engineer are  directed, with the mandate of




Environmental Protection Services, to increase the use and value of




water (NRS 445.244[3]).  The State Engineer must ensure that appro-




priated water is put to beneficial use (NRS 533.060, 070).  These




duties provide a statutory framework for the administrative




policy of water reuse now underway in Nevada.








        Although Nevada has a constitutional limit (of only 1 percent of




assessed valuation  of the state) on  public debt, there is one significant




exception.  The Nevada Constitution, Article 9, Section 3, exempts resource




development (e.g.,  any water program) from this constitutional limit.




This provision can  be used to allow  bond funding of water treatment and




reuse programs by cities and counties, and this could permit upgrading




of municipal wastewater effluent for potential industrial reuse.




        Current status.  Water reuse is a standard practice in Nevada,




particularly in the Colorado River Basin where water supplies are finite.




Reuse is expected to increase in the Las Vegas/Clark County area as raw




supplies diminish since the only alternative is importation of water.
                                 296

-------
The state water plan, under all alternatives, assumes use of return



water for municipal and industrial needs and for return flow credit


             23
to Lake Mead.


        Potential feasibility.  Nevada is already reusing water to



current practical standards.  It is anticipated that higher water



costs will stimulate greater water savings, yet as the demand for



water continues to grow and water costs rise, reuse will become



more financially feasible and more necessary.  No specific costs



have been estimated other than the assumption that reuse will be



more economical than importation.  No further action seems neces-



sary at this time.
        23
          Nevada,  Division of Water Resources, Office of the State

Engineer, and Nevada State Study Team,  Alternative Multiobjective Plans

Emphasizing Water  Resource Use in Area V, Colorado Planning Region,

Carson City:  April 1974,  p.  24.
                                 297

-------
NEW MEXICO—Action #12

     Agency responsible and legal authority.  The Water Quality Control

Commission has a duty to maintain and enforce regulations to preserve

and protect the water supply and to provide water pollution control, but

may not specify methods (such as reuse)  to prevent water pollution.

(NMSA 75-39-4D).  Other than this general authority, no agency

has any specific authority in the area of water reuse; and the state

does not have authority to issue NPDES permits.

     Current status^  There is very little industrial reuse or encourage-

ment for such reuse in New Mexico.  Some mining and milling operations in

the state are recycling their wastewater because it is usually cheaper

than pumping groundwater.  The San Juan  power plant is encouraged to be a

no-return-flow facility, a situation which promotes the value of recycling.

     Potential feasibility.  The only financial benefits to industrial

reuse examined in New Mexico have been by the mining industry, which found

reuse to be more economical than pumping water.  However, all of the major

water-using facilities planned in the San Juan Basin contemplate reuse of

cooling water as a water conservation and environmental protection measure.

Implementation of Action 12 by the State would not have much additional

effect.  Until water supplies become scarce no action is likely by the

state, although reuse by the power industry is technically feasible, and

will become economically feasible as the NPDES permits have more effect.

Even though New Mexico is currently using only about one-fourth to one-half

of its Colorado River allotment, it appears important to study reuse of

water in terms of future supplies.
                                                               Major
      Potential  Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable    Obstacle
      Legal                     ~~  X                             ~~~
      Political                                     X
      Administrative	                    X
                                   298

-------
 UTAH—Action #12




          Agency responsible and legal authority.  The Bureau of Water




Quality,  Division of Health, has general authority to maintain and




improve water quality (UCA 73-14-1).   The State Engineer approves




appropriations based on a determination of beneficial use (UCA 73-3-1).




Water pollution control is considered important because water reuse is




considered an important future supply,2^ and case law directs the State




Engineer to allow recapture and reuse of wastewaters with beneficial



                         ? S
use as the final measure.




           Current  status.   Utah has  no formal  program for water reuse




 except for power plants.   Because of the no salt return requirements




 for  them,  all power plants in the Colorado  River Basin are  recycling




 their cooling water.   The state is also giving consideration for reuse




 experiments,  as in the Cedar City area where effluent is being  used for




 recreational  irrigation.   Several mines are using wastewater for




 spraying dust and  for sediment control.
         24Utah, Bureau of Water Quality, Water Quality Report, April


1975,  p. 6.



         25McNaughton v. Eaton, 121 U. 394, 242 P. 2d 570.
                              299

-------
          Potential feasibility.  The current preferred method of state

officials for supplying new industrial water is to retire marginal agri-

cultural land, concurrently alleviating some of the return flow salinity.

However, reuse is considered an important source of future water supplies

and will take an increasingly active place in future water programs

in Utah.  In its continuing water plan the state must devote more atten-

tion to reuse as a future water supply, particularly in terms of industrial

development.  Industries wishing to recycle water would benefit from more

state encouragement and support.
                                                                   Major
         Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacles
         Legal                         X
         Political                     X
         Admimi s tra t ive                X
                                 300

-------
 WYOMING—Action  #12

         Agency responsible and legal authority.   The Department  of

 Environmental Quality has  the duty to plan the development,  use  and

 reclamation  of natural resources,  including water (WSA 35-502.2).  The

 State Engineer must  appropriate water according  to  the principle of

 beneficial use,  and  the principle  that water is  attached  to  the  land

 during  the term  of the permit (WSA 41-2).

         Current  status.  The  State Engineer contends that reuse  of

 water is generally prohibited,  since it normally would result in less

 water being  available to downstream right  holders and thus would

 conflict with the Wyoming  Constitution and water laws.27   At the

 very least a change  in water  right claim would have to be filled on

 the amount reused  (WSA 41-4.1).  In the past,  industrial  water users

 in the  Colorado  River Basin have largely been consumptive users  and

 thus were not considered candidates for any further reuse action. °

 However, it  was  anticipated that "improvements of water uses will

 probably occur when  they appeared  justified for  economic  reasons.  "

 There is no  industrial reuse  activity taking place  in Wyoming at this

 time, although industrial  facilities in the Green River Basin are con-

 structing wastewater recirculation systems to decrease the quantity of

 fresh water  needed,  and reuse systems are  under  discussion for new

 facilities.  The discharge of contaminated water is under NPDES  permit control,

 and water which  is subject to "zero discharge" regulation might  be allowed

 to be put to beneficial  use,  if  such use causes  no  return to the Green River.
         27Wyoming, Office of the State Engineer, Annual Report of the
State Engineer, 1975, Cheyenne:  June 30, 1975, p. 5.

         28Wyoming, State Engineer's Office Water Planning Program, The
Wyoming Framework Water Plan, Cheyenne:  May 1973, p. 200.

         29Ibid., p. 208.
                                   301

-------
          Potential feasibility.  Although the Wyoming Constitution and

water laws would seem to preclude any reuse activity, there is some case

law which indicates otherwise.  In essence, waste and seepage waters

are private waters, not waters of the state, and thus not subject to

              30
appropriation.    Percolating waters developed artificially, as by

                                    31
excavation, are also private waters.    So long as such water remains

on the land from which it originates it can be put to any use the holder

desires.  This case law would seem to allow for on-site water reuse.  Viewed

 in  conjunction with  the  economics of water  and appropriation  for  bene-

 ficial  use, it appears water  reuse  in Wyoming will become  feasible  at

 some  future point.   The  state should include, in its water  plans  and

 studies,  reuse as  a  potential water source.  Certain industry, such as

 power plants  and some mines,  should be encouraged to explore  recycling

 as  an alternative  to discharge  into holding ponds and as a  long-term

 economy measure.

        Because of the general assumption that state law prohibits reuse,

 this action is less feasible than in other states.

                                                                   Major
         Potential Feasibility:	Feasible	Questionable	Obstacle
         Legal                                        X
         Political                                                   X
         Administrative                X
         30
           Bowen v. Big Horn Canal Ass'n (Wyo.), 307 P. (2d) 593-
Binning v. Miller, 55 Wyo. 451, 102 P. (2d) 54.

         31Hunt v. Laramie,  26 Wyo. 160, 181 P. 137.
                                  302

-------
ACTION
12 . To reduce
salinity from
industrial
sources , re-
quire reuse
of wastewater
to reduce in-
dustrial water
demand .


H
-


<









UJ
o
UJ



























ARIZONA
ARS 36-1854. B
Statutory guide-
line that the
Water Quality
Control Council
should adhere
to the principle
that reuse "of
water is a bene-
iicial use.

Specific
















•lining industry re-
cycles sewage and
process water . Ag-
ricultural and
5 recreational reuse
2 is standard prac-
^ tice. Industrial
_, reuse is being de-
J5 veloped whenever
5 wastewater is
^ available .

Jater reuse under-
way wherever
practical and pos-
sible. No further
^ state action
j needed at this
2 t ime .


i
^
-
1
H
o
PL,
CALIFORNIA
WC 13510 to 13540
rovides that the
Jepartment of Water
Resources and the
Jater Quality Con-
rol Board must
.mplement state
jolicy to reclaim
nd reuse water.
financial aid for
uch projects is
>rovided under
JC 13511, WC 13515.

Specific













Close to requiring
reuse. Sponsoring
ongoing research .
Caiser Steel has
ueen reusing since
1942. Most current
reuse is for irriga-
tion and recreation,
Dut power plants
must now use low
quality water if it
is available .
Reused water is ex-
pected to provide an
even greater share
of supplemental wa-
ter. Costs will be-
come more attractive
as freshwater costs
escalate . Rate
structures could
accelerate the pro-
cess, but no action
is needed at this
time.


COLORADO
RS 25-8-202.1
he Water Quality
ontrol Commis-
ion must devel-
p and maintain
program for the
r event ion, con-
rol and abate-
ent of water
Dilution, and to
rotect water
uality.
RS 25-8-501
ives power to
ssue discharge
>ermits .

General










"iany industries
are recycling
tfith state en-
couragement .
Mining and mill-
ing operations
are also recycl-
ing. Power
slants are look-
ing at reuse be-
cause of dis-
charge permits .
leuse expected to
increase as fresh-
water costs esca-
late or water sup-
plies decrease.
fleed increased
state encourage-
ment for industri-
al reuse — in
costs , technology
and paperwork ar-
eas . Planning
should include re-
use as a water
source.
NEVADA
•4RS 533.325 to
33.435 The State
ngineer must is-
sue permit for
econdary use of
f fluent. He must
also develop a
omprehensive wa-
er resource plan,
^RS 532.165(1).
The Environmental
'rotection Ser-
vices must in-
crease the use and
value of water,
NRS 445.224(3),
and the State Engi-
neer ensures bene-
ficial use, NRS
533.060, 533.070.
The State Constitu-
tion exempts re-
source development
:rom debt limita-
tions, Art. 9,
Sec. 3.

[Specific
leuse is standard
practice for all
nonpo table uses in
CRB. Potable re-
use is expected to
occur by 2000.






Reuse will in-
crease as technol-
ogy improves and
fresh water sup-
plies diminish
while escalating
in cost. No state
action is needed
at this time.






NEW MEXICO
NMSA 75-39-4.
Water Quality Con-
trol Commission
is required to
preserve and pro-
tect the water
supply, and to
irovide pollution
control.

General

















Mining and milling
operations are re-
to reduce pumping
costs . Drinking
water may not be
recycled water.





State needs to de-
velop a policy on
reuse and encour-
age it where tech-
nically feasible .
tfo action is being
taken. But it
should be, at the
least , under
serious study.
Many water-using
industries are
planning reuse as
a conservation
measure.
UTAH
WYOMING
UCA 73-14-1 The 
-------
Impacts of Proposed Actions on Parties-at-Interest

        One of the selection criteria for the management actions

proposed in this report  (see Chapter IV) related to political accept-

ability:  "Any action which would  overcome  implementation obstacles

should be generally acceptable to  all parties involved  . .  . and parti-

cularly to those most greatly affected."  This  subsection discusses

the relative acceptability of the  proposed actions to various

groups, affected to a greater or lesser degree  by their implementation.

        For each management action or policy proposed to control or

alleviate salinity, there are several identifiable groups of persons

whose common interests are affected or impacted.  These have been

termed parties-at-interest and have been categorized roughly as

follows:

        • Parties internal to the  affected  industry  (or activity, or
          economic sector);

        • Suppliers and  customers  of the affected industry, activity,
          or sector;

        • Government, at different levels and in certain roles, e.g.,
          taxer, regulator, or keeper of the social welfare;

        • Affected bystander, e.g., those concerned with resources,
          fish or wildlife, recreation potential, or aesthetic effects.

The basic question used  to identify parties-at-interest is:

        What are the goals of identifiable  social or cultural
        or locational groups which lead them to perceive problems
        •''The term parties-at-interest and the concept of determining
the impact of a given policy upon them were developed in John S.
Gilmore, William M. Beaney, Paul I. Bortz, Mary K. Duff, and Thomas D.
Nevens, Environmental Policy Analysis, Parts I and II, Denver:
University of Denver Research Institute, 1971.
                                 304

-------
        differently, to set different priorities for solving
        problems, or to respond differently to a particular
        Policy/Program?

        The  12  proposed state and local management actions that

appear likely to control or reduce Colorado River salinity were sub-

divided into 21 discrete actions or subactions, shown across the

horizontal axis of Figure 5-1, a policy analysis matrix.  For these

actions, the authors of this study have analyzed and identified 22

distinct parties-at-interest.   These include affected industries or

economic sectors (irrigators,  cattlemen and sheepmen, power utilities);

suppliers of the affected industry (irrigation equipment suppliers,

well drillers,  contractors); various local, state and federal govern-

ment agencies;  and affected bystanders (environmentalists, downstream

water rights holders).   The parties-at-interest, some of whom are

affected by all proposed actions and some by only a few, are arrayed

along the vertical axis  of Figure 5-1.   Not every party that conceivably

could be affected has been shown, notably the customers of the affected

industries.   Although salinity control actions might  result in

increased costs to irrigators, electric utilities,  etc., that would

where possible be passed along in higher prices, the  consumers of

their products would not be significantly affected.  Some secondary

impacts also have been  omitted, such as impacts on local processing

industries dependent on products of irrigated agriculture, and on

employees of these industries.
        2Ibid.,  p.  93.
                                305

-------
        The authors of  this  report  next  analyzed  the  impacts* that

application of each of  the various  proposed actions would have on

the various parties-at-interest.  By  consensus  judgment, these impacts

have been identified and  categorized  as  to positive or negative impact.

A rough weighting of the  degree of  impact also  has been made.

        An inspection of  Figure 5-1 reveals that certain parties-at-

interest are favorably  impacted by  nearly every action recommended.

This is true of water quality  agencies and federal government agencies,

both of which logically can  be expected  to favor  the  implementation of

any state and local management action that will decrease river salinity.

Environmentalists also  tend  to favor  most salinity control actions,

except for those which  negatively impact wildlife habitat (e.g., modify-

ing natural vegetation  on rangeland)  or  which appear  likely to pro-

mote power plant or energy development.  Construction firms logically will

favor many of the actions which potentially may involve new structures;

only land use actions prohibiting development will negatively impact

construction firms.

        One very important constituency  in the  Colorado Basin—irrigated

agriculture—is threatened or  potentially impacted unfavorably by

several proposed actions.  Since nearly  all  (97 percent of) man-made

salinity has a source in  irrigated  agriculture, it is inevitable that
        *In earlier DRI research on environmental policy analysis,
John S. Gilmore, e* _§_!., defined impact as a change from the present state
of things or from the way things are clearly evolving.  Any impact
may be either positive or negative depending on the interests, values
or goals of different parties-at-interest.  They may fall on individuals,
economic entities, social or political institutions, or cultural charac-
teristics.

                                 306

-------
\
Le*
4-4-
4-
+~
\^ Actions to Control Salinity
•end : \>
Very fa-\
vorable \\
impact \^
Favorable \,
impact ^\
Mixed good £ bad \
Impacts N.
Unfavorable impact \^
Very unfavorable impact \^
No significant impact ^v
PARTIES-AT-INTEREST
Irrigators (surface water right
owner)
Irrigators (groundwater)
Irrigation/conservation districts
Water resource/allocation agencies
Water quality agencies (public
health)
Downstream surface water rights
holders
Federal agencies (EPA, DSBR, SCS,
ARS, USGS)
Local/county government
State government
Environmentalists
Irrigation equipment suppliers
Municipal water supply agencies
Wastewater treatment agencies
Power utilities
Planners (land use, 208)
Well drillers
Land developers
Construction firms
Cattlemen/ sheepmen
Municipal/commercial water users
Industry (mining, etc.)
water Softening Industry
Sanction by state agency if waste
occurs
—
-
-
-
4-
+
4-

-
44-
4-
4-


4-


4-


4-

Direct action to control quantity
of water diverted if waste occurs
—
—
-
—
4-
4-
4-

+
++
+



4-


4-


+

Salinity as priority in 208 plan-
ning
-
-
-
4-
4
4-
4-

+
4-4-

4-


4-


4-
_

-
Intrastate coordination of salin-
ity control actions
-
-
-
+
4-
+
4-

4-
4-




4-






-
Standards for water well construct
tion

-

+
4-

4-

+
-H-

+



—






Require plugging of abandoned
water wells

+

+
+
+
+


+

+





+




Require plugging of exploratory
wells and drill holes

+


+
4
+


++

+





+


-

Use irrigation return flow for
power plant cooling, etc.




+
-
+

+
+

+

-



+


-

Site energy facilities near
sources of saline water




+

-t-
+
+
+


+
—
+





—
Use land use controls to prohibit
irrigated agriculture on saline
lands
—
—
—

+
-t-
+
-
-
+
-



+


_




Economic incentives to promote
conversion of irrigated saline
land to other uses
-H-
-H-
+

+
4-
+
+
-
+
—



+

4-
+
4-

4-

Economic incentives to modify
vegetation on rangeland
Spucial use charges for irrigation
water to promote more efficient use
1
—
—
-
4-
4- 4-
4- +

-
+
4-4-



4-


4-
+



Economic incentives to promote
conversion of agricultural water
to other uses
4+
44-
4-

+

4-
4-
-
4-

+

4-








Economic incentives to increase
irrigation efficiency
+
+
4-
+
+
4-
4-

-
4-
44-






4-

4-


Modify state land leases to pre-
vent erosion or excess runoff
-
-


4-

4-

4-
4-




4-



—



On state land prohibit agriculture
or grazing on certain soil types
-
-


4-

+
-
4-
4-




+



—



On state land restrict grazing
intensity




4-

+

_(_
4-




+



On state land modify rangeland
vegetation




4-



~





4-



Regulate salt-loading appliances




4-

+
-

4-

+
4-





! 4-4-

'
—

—
Require industrial reuse of
Wastewater



4-
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-

+
4-
—





±
—

Figure 5-1: Matrix of Impacts  on Parties-at-Interest

-------
most proposed corrective actions will interfere with or add costs to




the operations of the agricultural sector.  Other actions, such as




the federal 208 program, are judged as having a negative impact because




of the change envisaged by some of the impacted parties.  This does not




preclude achievement of positive attitudes or the eventual welcoming




of federal participation, but it does mean that considerable educational




effort providing reassurance will be necessary before achieving positive




attitudes and cooperation from some of the parties-at-interest.




        Generally, the only actions which are not judged as negative by




irrigators are those involving economic incentives rather than sanctions.




In other words, the irrigated agricultural sector does not appear likely




to accept new salinity control policies except by a voluntary choice in




response to an economic reward, presumably provided by state government.




Authority exists for numerous actions involving sanctions or regulations




by state and local governments, but the feasibility of such actions depends




on the willingness of the states to face agricultural opposition.  This




seems to vary among states, depending on their policies of supporting




agriculture vs. industrial and energy development, and also on the states'




perceptions of the seriousness of the salinity problem.
                                308

-------
                             CHAPTER VI

            ROLE OF 208 WASTEWATER PLANNING PROGRAMS IN
                       CONTROLLING SALINITY
        Throughout the Colorado River Basin federally funded 208

wastewater planning programs  (Section 208 of PL 92-500) are under-

way.  A few of the 208 programs are in the last stages of completion

but most of the programs are in process, so this report might prove

of assistance.  Because these planning programs are aimed at control

of wastewater quality, they present a unique opportunity for obtain-

ing a local perspective on salinity control.

        For these reasons, the following salinity control action

was seen as viable:

    2.  Through the federally funded 208 wastewater planning
        programs (PL 92-500), establish salinity as a priority
        item to be dealt with and develop a series of local
        and/or state corrective actions.

        Background of the action.  Federally funded 208 programs

constitute an umbrella under which specific state and local ac-

tions to improve wastewater quality may be taken.

        The 208 wastewater management planning process is a federally

funded activity carried out by states and local governments (fre-

quently regional councils of government).  The initial two-year

program (federally funded) now underway throughout the United States

is designed to identify water quality problems, plan the preventive

or corrective steps necessary and designate the local 208 management

agency (usually cities, counties and special districts) responsible

to carry out the plan.
                                309

-------
        Although the 208 planning process is to continue after the




first two years, the initial planning is to be followed by implementa-




tion of the water quality actions recommended in the initial plan.




Once the 208 plan is approved by state governments and the Environ-




mental Protection Agency, the designated areawide 208 management




agencies which have legal and administrative jurisdiction will




be expected to carry out the plan.  In most cases,  the 208




management agencies will be units of local government.  These local




units will be required to indicate their willingness to assume the




208 roles outlined for them.




        Any 208 recommendations which deal with reduction of salinity




must have a management agency designated responsibility for carrying




out the action.  However, there may not be a local government with




either legal jurisdiction or motivation, or both, to implement any




208-identified salinity control measures.  For example, if salinity




from irrigated agriculture is identified as a problem requiring




208 management actions, there may not be any local agencies with




adequate authority to take action to control agricultural salinity.




        However, the 208 designated agency is not necessarily limited




to units of local government—state and federal government units may




also be designated.  Using the same example of irrigated agriculture,




a state agency with adequate legal jurisdiction to implement con-




trol actions might exist.  In this case the 208 plan would both




define the salinity control action and designate the state agency




responsible for carrying out the action.
                               310

-------
        One direct means of causing local jurisdiction to implement




208 actions is by influencing the NPDES permit system.  If a 208




plan requires that a local agency take management action designed




to reduce salinity, the NPDES permit may specify the agency's as-




sumption of responsibility for implementing the action as a con-




dition of the permit.  This would force salinity control measures to




be taken within a specified period of time.




        Another means of insuring implementation of 208 water quality




recommendations is through the authority to approve or disapprove




federal wastewater treatment construction grants.   If, for example,




a local area does not comply with the 208 water quality recommendations,




it is possible that no federal grants would be received and the local




area would have to pay 100 percent of the cost of wastewater treat-




ment plant improvements.  The Environmental Protection Agency is,




as yet, unclear on how this policy might be pursued, particularly if




the grant applicant is not also the jurisdiction directly responsible




for carrying out the 208 salinity control action.




         In  summary,  while 208 planning programs  themselves  do  not




 have authority to undertake salinity control measures,  they are




 designed to define the extent of a water quality problem,  determine




 the necessary corrective actions and identify those local agencies




 which have  sufficient authority to take the needed actions.  In




 other words,  specific salinity control measures and management tech-




 niques can  be an outgrowth of the 208 process if salinity is deter-




 mined to be a problem within the area of a 208 study.
                              311

-------
        Potential salinity management actions.  The following pages




give a general indication of this report's evaluation of the appli-




cability of salinity control actions to the 208 process.  The appro-




priateness of each individual action to a particular 208




depends, of course, on the local area's need for salinity control




and the nature of the source of this pollution.  For example, regu-




lation of water softeners is very applicable to 208 recommendations




and ultimate control where salinity is a problem.  However, the con-




tribution of these appliances may make no difference in the salinity




of the Colorado River if the planning area is Vail, Colorado, where




they are not used.




        A final word of caution is in order.   The following discus-




sion of the actions is general.  It should not serve as the final




word or approach to a salinity problem for the  208's.   In-'




stead, the discussion is meant to give some approaches which might




assist each particular 208  in  formulating  specific  manage-




ment actions which are effective in salinity control.
                               312

-------
                      Management Action
              208 Potential
1.  Regulate irrigation water use so that the water
    rights holder reduces excess use and implements
    waste control measures.  This may be done by:
    (a) Direction action by the agency administering
        water rights, to limit or control amounts
        of water diverted if waste occurs; or
    (b) Imposing sanctions by the State Engineer,
        irrigation district or other appropriate
        agency, on water users using excessive
        amounts of water.
This action is classified as having 208 potential
to identify as needed for salinity control.  How-
ever, implementation of the action would probably
rest with state agencies or local districts rather
than the local 208 management entities.  The high-
est probable impact of 208 activities would be to
identify and document the local need for this action
to control salinity.
2.  Through the federally funded 208 wastewater
    planning programs, establish salinity as a
    priority item to be dealt with and develop
    a series of local and/or state corrective
    actions.
This action is detailed in the preceding and
following discussions.
    Because of the need for an integrated approach
    to salinity control programs, utilize an exist-
    ing state agency (or establish such an agency)
    to coordinate and promote salinity control ac-
    tions by different state institutions.	
Areawide 208's can identify the need and build
the justification for this action as a salinity
control measure.  However, because of the nature
of the action, this must be taken by the state.
    Require minimum standards for water well con-
    struction, and require plugging of abandoned
    water wells and exploratory drill holes, to
    avoid contamination of groundwater strata.
This action might be taken through local regula-
tion by cities, counties, and other local politi-
cal agencies where the salinity problem warrents.
However, in most states, regulation of well con-
struction is a state matter and the more likely
role of the 208 would  be to  identify  the
need for more state enforcement and improvements
in existing legislation and assist in the develop-
ment of the regulations.                	 	
5.  To reduce salinity  from agriculture, use irriga-
    tion return  flow  in nonagricultural areas; e.g.,
    for power plant cooling.  Utilize energy facili-
    ty siting procedures  to encourage the use of low
    quality waters where  the water requirements of
    such facilities could be met utilizing saline
	and other low quality waters.	
This action might be encouraged by the local 208
management agencies which have the power of zoning
and land use decisions.  In determining the local
zoning for future energy facility sites, highly
saline irrigation return flows and their potential
for nonagricultural use might become one of the
factors in the local land use decisions.

-------
                Management Action  (continued)
        208 Potential (continued)
6.  Through land use controls, prohibit (or limit)
    irrigated agriculture on lands with high natural
    salt content in soils and subsoils, and select
    new lands for irrigation having soils and sub-
    soils that will contribute reduced salt loads
    to irrigation return flow.
Although this action may be legally possible
for 208 management agencies to take through
local land use controls, in most cases it will
be politically questionable.  Controlling agri-
culture by land use and zoning is not a popular
approach.  However, where salinity from agri-
culture is a problem, the 208 study can at least
document the need for this action.
    Through state economic incentives, promote con-
    version of land used for irrigated agriculture to
    other uses when highly saline return flows can-
    not be prevented, controlled, or treated and en-
    courage the modification of vegetation on range-
    land (e.g., convert sagebrush to grassland) to
    reduce natural salinity from storm runoff.
This action is directed toward state agencies.
208 planning activities can assist by identify-
ing and documenting the need for this action.
    Establish special use charges for  irrigation
    water provided from reclamation projects to
    cause more efficient usage and to  encourage
    waste control measures.  Use excess funds de-
    rived to finance waste control capital improve-
    ments on farms and in the conveyance system.
For pricing as a means of salinity control to be
effective, local irrigation districts must be
the implementing agent.  This will probably be
an unwanted task of the districts and should the
208 agencies recommend this approach to salinity
control, it will be met with resistance.  Where
this action can help reduce salinity, the local
208 projects should make the recommendation.
Without local irrigation districts and irrigators
falling under specific NPDES permits, the effec-
tiveness of the recommendation will be limited—
but it still should be made.
9.  By use of  state  economic  incentives, promote con-
    version of marginal  agricultural water  to
    other uses, or increase irrigation  efficiency, to
    reduce or  eliminate  salinity  resulting  from
    irrigation return  flows.
The role 208's can have in this action is to
identify the need and help build justification
for the state to undertake this action.   A sec-
ond, equally important role of 208's is that of
working with the local irrigation districts,
SCS, and others, in determining the best manage-
ment options for a given area in increasing
irrigation efficiency.	

-------
                  Management Action (continued)
        208 Potential (continued)
10.  Administratively modify leases  of  state lands  (at
     time of  lease  or renewal)  to  prohibit  agricultural
     practices which  cause  erosion or excess runoff  of
     saline water,  and to improve  the land  to reduce
     runoff by:   prohibiting agriculture  or grazing
     on certain  soil  types,  restricting grazing in-
     tensity, and modifying vegetation  of rangeland  to
	reduce salinity  from runoff.
The role of 208 programs in this action is to
identify the need and build justification for
the state to take this approach where warranted.
 11.   To reduce salinity from municipal sources,  regu-
      late salt loading appliances such as  water
      softeners.
OJ
M
Ui
Of all the salinity actions in this report,
the 208 process can have the greatest direct
impact where this action is needed.  Areawide
208 programs can identify the need for this
action, determine the nature of the regulations,
and assign responsibility to the appropriate
management agency.  However, with only a few
exceptions, such as Las Vegas, Nevada, the con-
tribution of salinity from municipal salt loading
appliances is currently so low that this action
may not be warranted at this time.
 12.   To reduce salinity from industrial sources,  require
      reuse of wastewater to reduce industrial water
      demand.
208's have the charge to identify where
this type of action is needed.   Further, a direct
assignment of 208 management authority and imple-
mentation responsibility can be accomplished.	

-------
                            APPENDIX A
                    LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
                              Arizona
William H. Allen, Jr.
Arizona State Land Department
Phoenix, Arizona

John Bannister
Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation
  Commission
Phoenix, Arizona

William Blackledge
Arizona Board of Pesticide
  Control
Phoenix, Arizona

John N. Carr
Planning and Development Section
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Phoenix, Arizona

Dennis Davis
Arizona Office of Economic
  Planning and Development
Phoenix, Arizona

Charles R. Eatherly
Arizona State Parks Department
Phoenix, Arizona

Steve Faltis (T)
Executive Director
Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Service
United States Department of
  Agriculture
Phoenix, Arizona

Robert Farrer
Arizona Water Commission
Phoenix, Arizona
Don Gross
Arizona State Parks Department
Phoenix, Arizona

Peter C. Gulatto,  Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Arizona Department of Law
Phoenix, Arizona

Kelly R. Johnson
Arizona State Land Department
Phoenix, Arizona

James Matt
Office of Arizona State Mine
  Inspection
Phoenix, Arizona

Robert Munari
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Arizona .Department of Health
  Services
Phoenix, Arizona

Ron Olding
Planning and Development Section
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Phoenix, Arizona

Les Ormsby (T)
Arizona Power Authority
Phoenix, Arizona

Shirley Romine, Engr. (T)
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Project
Yuma, Arizona

Ken Rotta (T)
Arizona Power Authority
Phoenix, Arizona
         (T) = Telephone Interview
                                A-l

-------
S.C. Ryan
Arizona State Land Department
Phoenix, Arizona

William Shafer
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Arizona Department of Health
  Services
Phoenix, Arizona

Wesley Steiner, State Engineer
Arizona Water Commission
Phoenix, Arizona

Edwin K. Swanson, P.E.
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Arizona Department of Health
  Services
Phoenix, Arizona
     Richard Sweet
     Arizona Board of Pesticide
       Control
     Phoenix,  Arizona

     Reed Teeples
     Salt River Project
     Phoenix,  Arizona

     Sid  Wilson
     Salt River Project
     Phoenix,  Arizona

     Robert  Yount
     Arizona State Land Department
     Phoenix,  Arizona
                            California
Scott Atkins (T)
Land Transactions Unit
State Lands Commission
State of California
Sacramento, California

Thomas Bailey
Division of Planning and
  Research
Water Resources Control Board
State of California
Sacramento, California

George R. Baumli, Chief
Planning Branch
Department of Water Resources
State of California
Los Angeles, California

Al Cornell, Program Specialist
Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Service
United States Department of
  Agriculture
Sacramento, California
(T)
John Day
Department of Fish and Game
State of California
Sacramento, California

Chuck Fisher
Department of Fish and Game
State of California
Sacramento, California

E.G. Fullerton, Director
Department of Fish and Game
State of California
Sacramento, California

Mary Ann Gresser
EPA Region IX
Water Division
San Francisco, California

Mitch Gould, Chief
Operations Branch
Department of Water Resources
State of California
Los Angeles, California
        (T) = Telephone Interview
                               A-2

-------
Ed Haycock
Water Resources Control Board
State of California
Sacramento, California

Robert Helwick, Esq.  (T)
Staff Attorney
East Bay Municipal Utilities
  District
Oakland, California

Raymond M. Hertel
Executive Officer
Water Quality Control Board,
  Region 4
State of California
Los Angeles, California

Jack Hodges
Department of Water Resources
State of California
Sacramento, California

Myron Holburt, Chief Engineer
Colorado River Board of
  California
Los Angeles, California

John H. Lauten, General Manager
The Metropolitan Water District
  of Southern California
Los Angeles, California

Ed Littrell
Department of Fish and Game
State of California
Sacramento, California

Philip Macias
Department of the Interior
San Francisco, California

James Markle, Esq.
Legal Division
Water Resources Control Board
State of California
Sacramento, California
Don Maughan
Water Resources Control Board
State of California
Sacramento, California

Marion G. Mefford
California Division of Oil
  and Gas
Sacramento, California

Bob Miller
Department of Water Resources
State of California
Sacramento, California

Robert Pratt
Department of Food and Agriculture
State of California
Sacramento, California

Fred V. Roland
Chief of Public Information
California Department of Water
  Resources
Sacramento, California

Art Swajian, Executive Officer (T)
Water Quality Control Board,
Colorado River Basin Region
State of California
Palm Desert, California

Dean Thompson
Office of Public Affairs
State of California
Sacramento, California

Vernon Valentine, Assistant
Colorado River Board of California
Los Angeles, California

Ernest Weber
Colorado River Board of California
Los Angeles, California
         (T) = Telephone Interview
                                A-3

-------
Boyd H. Wessman
Assistant Director of Public
  Relations
The Metropolitan Water District
  of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
                             Colorado
Hamlet J. Barry, III, Esq.
Water Study Coordinator
Department of Natural Resources
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Michael Bessler
Colorado River Water Quality
  Office
United States Bureau of
  Reclamation
Denver, Colorado

Board Secretary (T)
Colorado Soil Conservation Board
Denver, Colorado

Gary Broetzman
208 Coordinator
Office of the Governor
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

David Carlson
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Denver, Colorado

Dr. J.A. Danielson, P.E.
Deputy State Engineer
Denver, Colorado
 Evan D.  Dildine,  P.E.
 Technical Secretary
 Water Quality Control  Commission
 State of Colorado
 Denver,  Colorado

 Gary Fisher
 Colorado Land Use Commission
 Denver,  Colorado

 Roger  Frenette
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Region VIII
 Denver,  Colorado

 John Gibbs (T)
 Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Service
 United States Department of
  Agriculture
 Denver,  Colorado

Paul Ferraro
 EPA Region VIII
 Denver,  Colorado

 Evan Goulding
 Commissioner of Agriculture
 State of Colorado
 Denver,  Colorado
        (T) = Telephone Interview
                                A-4

-------
Sue Ellen Harrison, Esq.
Solicitor General
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Dr. Frank Hersman, Director
Governor's Planning and Coordi-
  nating Council
Office of the Governor
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Earl Hess
United States Department of
  Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Denver, Colorado

Dr. Charles Howe  (T)
Department of Economics
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado

John Keys
Colorado River Water Quality
  Office
United States Bureau of
  Reclamation
Denver, Colorado

Eddie Kochman
Division of Wildlife
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

J.A. McKee
Oil and Gas Conservation
  Commission
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Robert Martin
Division of Standards and
  Technology
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Denver, Colorado

Alan Herson, Esq., Director
Land Use Commission
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado
Laren Morrill
Division of Water Resources
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Tommy Neal, Commissioner
Board of Land Commissioners
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Jim Ohi
Land Use Commission
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Philip Overynder
208 Project Director
Northwest COG
Frisco, Colorado

Dr. Edmund Pugsley
Department of Health
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Peggy Pugsley
LWV Water Expert
Denver, Colorado

Jerry W. Raisch, Esq.
Office of the Regional Counsel
EPA Region VIII
Denver, Colorado

Dr. George Radosevich
Department of Economics
Colorado State University
Ft. Collins, Colorado

Frank Rozich
Division of Water Quality
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Harris Sherman, Esq., Director
Division of Natural Resources
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado
         (T) = Telephone  Interview
                                 A-5

-------
Felix Sparks, Director
Division of Water Resources
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado

Robert Strand
Colorado River Water
  Quality Office
United States Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado
Paul Williamson
NPDES Permit Program
Department of Health
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado
                              Nevada
Cal Allen
Fisheries Supervisor
Nevada Department of Game
  and Fish
Las Vegas, Nevada

Bruce Arkell
Nevada State Planning
  Coordinator
Carson City, Nevada

Jack Cardinalli (T)
Department of Water Resources
State of Nevada
Carson City, Nevada

Tim Carlson, Deputy
Division of Colorado River
  Resources
Las Vegas, Nevada

Rich Capuno, Executive Director
Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Service
United States Department of
  Agriculture
Carson City, Nevada

Harry Galloway, Director
Division of Plant Industry
Nevada Department of Agriculture
Reno, Nevada
E. James Cans
Facilities Design Administration
Clark County Sanitation District
Las Vegas, Nevada

State Senator James I. Gibson
Pacific Engineering
Las Vegas, Nevada

Ernest G. Gregory, Chief
Environmental Protection Services
Nevada Division of Health
Carson City, Nevada

Norman Hall, Assistant Director
Department of Conservation and
  Natural Resources
State of Nevada
Carson City, Nevada

Laurence Hampton
Director of Public Works
City of Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada

Vic Hill, Planning Section
Division of Water Resources
State of Nevada
Carson City, Nevada
        (T) = Telephone Interview
                                A-6

-------
Addison Millard, Administrator  (T)  Donald A. Paff, Administrator
Division of State Lands             Division of Colorado River
State of Nevada                       Resources
Carson City, Nevada                 Las Vegas, Nevada
Kijoshi Nishikawa
Deputy Registrar of Lands
State Lands and Land Use Planning
State of Nevada
Carson City, Nevada
Francis W. Thorne
Department of Water Resources
State of Nevada
Las Vegas, Nevada
                            New Mexico
Paul Bloom, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the State Engineer
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Cubia Clayton, Deputy Director
Environmental Improvement Agency
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Carole Cristiano
Assistant to the City Manager
  for Water Planning
City of Santa Fe
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Louis Drypolcher
208 Program
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Terry Edgmon
Division of Public Administration
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Carlos Gallegos
Assistant Commissioner
New Mexico State Land Office
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Bruce Garber, Legal Division
Environmental Improvement Agency
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Dwain Glidewell (T)
Range Management Specialist
New Mexico State Land Office
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Maxine Goad
Environmental Improvement Agency
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Eileen Grevey, Technical Secretary
Energy Resources Board
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

David P- Hale
Interstate  Streams Engineer
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Richard  Holland
208 Program
State  of New Mexico
Santa  Fe, New Mexico
         (T)  =  Telephone  Interview
                               A-7

-------
Carl Larson (T)
Four Corners Regional Commission
Farmington, New Mexico

Warren McNall
Assistant Chief of Fisheries
Department of Game and Fish
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Stephen E. Reynolds
New Mexico State Engineer
Santa Fe, New Mexico

John Samuelson, Director
New Mexico State Planning Office
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Carl Slingerland
Office of State Engineer
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Margaret Thibodeau, Administrator
New Mexico Natural Resource
  Conservation Commission
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Jon Thompson
Environmental Improvement Agency
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Carl G. Ulvog (T)
Four Corners Regional Commission
Farmington, New Mexico

Roy Wolf  (T)
Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Service
United States Department of
  Agriculture
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Charles Wood, Liaison Officer  (T)
Energy Resources Board
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico
                               Utah
Don Andriano
Division of Wildlife
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Wayne Austin (T)
Division of Water Resources
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Craig Bell (T)
Assistant Director
Western States Water Council
Salt Lake City, Utah
Owen Burnham
Division of Natural Resources
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Dale Carpenter
Division of Industrial Promotion
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Harold Donaldson
Water Rights Division
Utah State Engineer's Office
Salt Lake City, Utah
        (T) = Telephone Interview
                                 A-8

-------
Pat Driscoll
Division of Oil and Gas
  Conservation
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Rudy Drobnik
Game Management Specialist
Division of Wildlife
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Stan Elmer
Division of Parks and Recreation
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Cleon B. Feight
Division of Oil and Gas
  Conservation
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Bill Geer
Division of Wildlife
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Ival V. Goslin
Executive Director
Upper Colorado River Commission
Salt Lake City, Utah

Dee Hansen
Utah State Engineer
Salt Lake City, Utah

James Harvey
Utah Soil Conservation Service
Salt Lake City, Utah

Robert Hilbert
Central Utah Water Conservancy
  District
Salt Lake City, Utah

Dallin Jensen, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Lowell Johnson (T)
Division of State Lands
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Daniel Lawrence
Division of Water Resources
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Roger Lee
Human Resources Division
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Donald McMillan
Utah Geological Survey
Salt Lake City, Utah

Jack Ockey (T)
Utah State Planning
  Coordinator's Office
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Chauncy Powis
State Planning Coordinator's
  Office
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Gale Prince
Division of State Lands
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Barry Saunders
Division of Water Resources
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Secretary to Executive Director
Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Services
United States Department of
  Agriculture
Salt Lake City, Utah
         (T) = Telephone Interview
                                A-9

-------
Calvin Sudweeks
Bureau of Water Quality
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Lynn M. Thatcher
Bureau of Environmental Health
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
                              Wyoming
James G. Ahl, Commissioner
Land Use Commission
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Don Armstrong (T)
Water Quality Control Board
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Donald B. Basko (Letter)
Oil and Gas Conservation
  Commission
State of Wyoming
Casper, Wyoming

Larry Bourret
Commissioner of Agriculture
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Dan Budd
Upper Colorado River Commissioner
Big Piney, Wyoming

Tom Charlton
State Planning Coordinator's
  Office
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

George Christopulos
Wyoming State Engineer
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Elaine E. Dinger, Director
Office of Industrial Siting
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

William Garland
Water Quality Control Board
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Myron Goodson, Chief
Water Division
Department of Economic Planning
  and Development
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Richard Hartman
State Planning Coordinator's
  Office
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Clement Lord
Interstate Streams Engineer
Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Jack Palma, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming
        (T) = Telephone Interview
                                A-10

-------
Program Specialist  (T)
Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Service
United States Department of
  Agriculture
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Larry Robinson
208 Planning Coordinator
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Bill Sinclair
Wyoming 208 Study Consultant
CH2M Hill
Denver, Colorado

Dale Strickland
Staff Biologist
Game and Fish Department
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Frank Trelease, Director
Water Planning Program
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming
David A. Violette
CH2M Hill
Southwestern Wyoming 208
Evanston, Wyoming

Al Wagner (T)
State Land Office
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Joseph R. White, Assistant Chief
Game and Fish Department
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Arthur Williamson
Department of Health
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming
         (T)  = Telephone Interview
                                 A-ll

-------
                            APPENDIX B

                BIBLIOGRAPHY:   SOURCES PERTAINING TO
                       SALINITY  CONTROL IN THE
                          COLORADO RIVER
Arizona.  Board of Pesticide Control.  Pesticide Use and Application
     Act; and Rules and Regulations. 1974.

Arizona.  Department of State.  Official Compilation of Administrative
     Rules and Regulations. Phoenix:  1976.

Arizona.  Earl V. Miller Engineers and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.  Water
     Quality Management Plan, Colorado Main Stem River Basin,
     Arizona, Arizona Department of Health Services, 1976.

Arizona.  Milton R. Schroeder.  The Public Control of Private Land
     in Arizona, Office of the Governor, July 1973.

Arizona.  Office of the Governor.  "Continuing Planning Process for
     Water Quality Planning," April 1976.

Arizona.  Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.  Oil, Gas and Helium,
     1972.

Arizona.  Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Rules and Regulations;
     Geothermal Resources. 1972.

Arizona.  Revised Statutes.  Pesticide Use and Application Act and Rules
     and Regulations, Laws of 1968, Chapter 210; and Laws of 1974,
     Chapter 133.  Distributed by Arizona Board of Pesticide Control,
     Phoenix.

Arizona.  State Land Department.  Annual Report 1974-75, Phoenix:
     Arizona State Land Commission, Andrew L. Bettwy in accordance
     with ARS 37-132 and ARS 45-107, Vol. 6, Book 1, August 12, 1975.

Arizona Water Commission.  Arizona State Water Plan; Phase I—Inventory
     of Resource and Uses, and Summary, Phoenix:  July 1975.

Arizona Water Commission.  Arizona State Water Plan; Phase II—
     Alternative futures, Phoenix:  February 1977-

Arizona Water Commission.  Fourth Annual Report, 1973-74, Phoenix:
     December 24, 1974.

Arizona Water Commission.  Fifth Annual Report, 1974-75, Phoenix:
     1975.
                                 B-l

-------
Arizona Water Commission.  Sixth Annual Report, 1975-76, Phoenix,
     1976.

Arizona.  Water Quality Standards and Water Pollution Control Statutes;
     memos on salt seeps and 208 planning.

Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers.  Development of a Nonpoint
     Source Pollution Control Program for Santa Maria Valley, Cali-
     fornia, Walnut Creek, California:  May 1976.

Bruvold, William H. and Raymond N. Mitchell, Jr.  Consumer Evaluation
     of the Quality and Cost of Domestic Water, Davis, California:
     Water Resources Center, July 1976.

California.  Association of California Water Agencies.  The Impact of
     Power Plant Siting on California's Water Resources, Sacramento:
     July 1976.

California.  Colorado River Board.  Annual Report, 1974, Los Angeles:
     Colorado River Board of California, 1975, with Appendix.

California.  Energy Commission.  "Power Plant Siting Report,"
     Sacramento:  November 1976.

California.  Imperial Irrigation District.  "Resolution No. 45-76,"
     Imperial:  June 29, 1976.

California.  Metropolitan Water District Act, Annotated, As Amended
     by 1976 Legislature, Sacramento:  compiled and annotated by
     General Council, undated.

California.  Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
     Info.  Los Angeles:  issue dated September 1976.

California.  Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
     Official Statement. $50.000,000 Waterworks Revenue Bonds. Issue
     of 1976, Los Angeles:  1976.

California.  Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River
     Basin Region.  Water Quality Control Planning Program, November
     1976.

California.  The Resources Agency.  "California Resources," Sacra-
     mento:  1974.

California.  The Resources Agency.  State Policy on the Lower Colorado
     River Management Program and Associated Environmental Factors,
     California:  September 1970.

California.  The Resources Agency.  Department of Water Resources.
     Department Publications, 1970-1974 (Bulletin No. 170-174),
     Sacramento:  July 1975.


                                 B-2

-------
California.  The Resources Agency.  Department of Water Resources.
     Phase II;  Alternative Courses of Action to Provide Delta Pro-
     tection and Adequate Water Supplies for California, Sacramento:
     March 1976.

California.  The Resources Agency.  Department of Water Resources.
     Reclamation of Water from Wastes in Southern California
     (Bulletin No. 80-5), Sacramento:  November 1975.

California.  The Resources Agency.  Department of Water Resources.
     Water and Power from Geothermal Resources in California; An
     Overview (Bulletin No. 190), Sacramento;December 1974.

California.  The Resources Agency.  Department of Water Resources.
     Water Conservation in California (Bulletin No. 198), Sacramento:
     May 1976.

California.  The Resources Agency.  Department of Water Resources.
     Water Well Standards:  State of California (Bulletin No. 74),
     Sacramento:  February 1968, July 1971.

California.  State Lands Commission.  California Administrative Code
     Article 1-11, Sacramento:  June 1975.

California.  State Water Resources Control Board.   The Porter-
     Cologne Water Quality Control Act, July 1974.

California.  State Water Resources Control Board.   Regional Water
     Quality Control Board.  Colorado River Basin Region (7).
     Water Quality Control Plan Report;   East Colorado River Basin
     (7),  Sacramento:  State Water Resources Control Board, April
     17, 1975.

California.  State Water Resources Control Board.   The Porter-
     Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Related Code Sections
     (Including 1975 Amendments), Sacramento:  July 1976.

California.  State Water Resources Control Board.   Water Quality
     Control Plan Report, Santa Ana River Basin [8], Riverside,
     California:  Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency, 1975.
     Part I, Vol.  1; Part II, Vol. 1 and 2.

Casey,  Hugh E.  Salinity Problems in Arid Lands Irrigation;  A
     Literature Review and Selected Bibliography (Arid Lands Resource
     Information Paper No. 1).  Tucson:   University of Arizona,
     Office of Arid Lands Studies, 1972.

Celnicker, Arnold.  "State Water Laws and Pollution Caused by
     Irrigation Return Flow," Denver, Colorado:  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement, National Field
     Investigations Center, September 1974.  Unpublished memo.
                                 B-3

-------
 Christiansen, J.E.  "Agricultural and Urban Considerations  in
      Irrigation and Drainage:  Selected Papers from  the  Irrigation
      and Drainage Division Specialty Conference," American  Society
      of Civil Engineers, Fort Collins, April 22-24,  1973.

 Christopulos, George L.  Wyoming Water and Irrigation Laws,  Cheyenne:
      Office of the Wyoming State Engineer, 1975.

 Cleary, Edward J.  The Orsanco Story;  Water Quality Management
      in the Ohio Valley Under an Interstate Compact, Baltimore:
      Resources for the Future, 1967.

 Cochran, G.F. and W.C. Wilson.  Arid Urban Water Management;   Some
      Economic, Institutional and Physical Aspects, Reno:  University
      of Nevada, Desert Research Institute, November  1971.

 Colorado.   Department of Health.   Water Quality Control  Commission.
      Regulations for the Control of Water Pollution  from Feedlots,
      Adopted April 16, 1974; Effective August 1, 1974.   Photocopy.

 Colorado.  Department of Health.  Water Quality Control  Commission.
      Regulations Governing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems in
      Identified Areas, Adopted January 15, 1974; Effective  June 19,
      1974.  Photocopy.

Colorado.   Department of Health.   Water Quality Control Commission.
     Water Quality Standards and  Stream Classification,  Denver:
     undated.

Colorado.   Department of Health.   Water Quality Control Division.
     Colorado Water Quality Control Program Plan,  Fiscal Year 1975,
     Denver:   1974.   Photocopy.

Colorado.   Department of Health.   Water Quality Control Division.
     Fiscal Year 1975 Report to  the Water Quality  Control Commission,
     Denver:   October 1, 1975.

Colorado.   Department of Health.   Water Quality Control Division.
     Manual for Reporting Spills,  Denver:  January 1975.

Colorado.   Department of Health.   Water Quality Control Division.
     Report to the Governor,  Fiscal Year 1974,  Denver:  October 15,
     1974.

Colorado.   Department of Health.   Water Quality Control Division.
     Water Quality Management Plan—Colorado River Basin.  Appendix C:
     Water Quality Standards for  Salinity Including Numeric Criteria
     and Plan of Implementation  for Salinity Control, Denver:
     October  1975.
                                 B-4

-------
Colorado.  Department of Natural Resources.  Oil and Gas Conservation
     Commission.  "Rules and Regulations," July 1, 1973.

Colorado.  Division of Water Resources.  "Rules and Regulations and
     Water Well and Pump Installation Contractor's Law," 1972.

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.  Proposed Water Quality
     Standards for Salinity, Including Numeric Criteria and Plan
     of Implementation for Salinity Control; Colorado River System,
     June 1975.
     Also:  Supplement, August 26, 1975.  Photocopy.

Colorado.  State Board of Land Commissions, Department of Natural
     Resources.  Surface Leases; State School Lands, Denver:
     June 1, 1969.

Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the
     Colorado River and its Tributaries—Colorado, New Mexico,
     Arizona, California, Nevada, Wyoming and Utah.  Seventh Session,
     Held at Las Vegas, Nevada February 15-17, 1972.  Transcript of
     Proceedings, 2 vol.  Also:  Seventh Session Reconvened, April
     26-27, 1972, Denver, Colorado, Washington:  Government Printing
     Office, 1972.

Cootner, Paul H. and O.G. Lof George.  Water Demand for Steam Electric
     Generation, Baltimore:  Resources for the Future, 1965.

Council on Environmental Quality.  Fifth Annual Report, Washington, D.C.
     Government Printing Office, 1974.

Council of State Governments.  Western Conference of the Council of
     State Governments; Outline Summary of the 1972 Annual Meeting,
     November 19-22, Tucson. Arizona, San Francisco:  1972.

Cummings, Ronald.  Water Resource Management in Northern Mexico,
     Baltimore:  Resources for the Future, 1972.

Dewsnup, Richard L. and Dallin W. Jensen, eds.  A Summary—Digest of
     State Water Laws, Virginia:  National Water Commission, 1973.

Dewsnup, Richard L. and Dallin W. Jensen.  Identification. Description
     and Evaluation of Strategies for Reserving Flows for Fish and
     Wildlife, Salt Lake City:  WELUT Project 23, February 10, 1977.

Duke, Harold R., et al.  Irrigation Return Flow Water Quality as
     Affected by Irrigation Water Management in the Grand Valley of
     Colorado, Denver:  Environmental Protection Agency, October 1976.

Dutt, Gordon R., Kim C. Krumhar, and David M. Hendricks.  A Study
     Plan of Direct Measurement of Precipitation of Salts in Reser-
     voirs Along the Colorado River,  Tucson:  University of Arizona,
     College of Agriculture, March 1975.
                                 B-5

-------
Fairchild, Warren D.  "Planning Water Resources Projects  to Maximize
     Environmental Benefits," a compilation of papers presented  at
     session No. 14, American Society of Civil Engineers  National
     Meeting on Water Resources Engineering, January 1973.

Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 136, July 15, 1977.

Flack, J. Ernest and Charles W. Howe.  Salinity in Water  Resources;
     Proceedings of the 15th Annual Western Resources Conference
     July 1973, University of Colorado, Boulder:  Merriman Publish-
     ing Company, 1974.

Gray, S. Lee and John R. McKean.  An Economic Analysis of Water
     Use in Colorado's Economy, Fort Collins:  Colorado State University,
     December 1975.

Hamburg, Donald H. and Loren L. Swick, eds.  Colorado Statutes
     Pertaining to Water Resources and Selected Water Cases,
     Colorado:  Office of the State Engineer, 1973.

Harrison, David L. and Charles N. Woodruff.  Accommodations of the
     Appropriation Doctrine and Federal Goals Under Sections 208 and
     404 of Public Law 93-500 and Section 10 of the Rivers and
     Harbor Act of 1899, Sun Valley, Idaho:  Rocky Mountain Mineral
     Law Institute, July 1976.

Hendricks, David W. and Roger W. DeHaan.  Input-Output Modeling in
     Water Resources System Planning, Fort Collins:  Colorado State
     University, November 1975.

Holburt, Myron  B. and Harold  F. Pellegrin.  California's  Stake in
     the Colorado River, Los Angeles:   Colorado River Board of
     California, 1969.

Holburt, Myron  B.  The Colorado:  Still a  Problem River,  Los Angeles:
     Colorado River Association, undated.

Holburt, Myron  B.  Need for Controlling Salinity  of the Colorado River,
     Los Angeles:  Colorado River Board of California, August 1970.

Holland and Hart.  Report to Governor John A. Love on Certain Colorado
     Water Law Problems. Denver:  Holland and Hart, December 20,  1972.

Howe, Charles W.  Benefit-Cost Analysis for Water System Planning,
     Washington, D.C.:  American Geophysical Union, 1971.

Howe, Charles W. and Douglas V. Orr.  "Effects of Agricultural
     Acreage Reduction on Water Availability and Salinity in the
     Upper Colorado River Basin," Water Resources Research. 10:5
     (October 1974),  pp. 893-897.
                                 B-6

-------
Jennings, Jennifer.  "Another Energy Crisis—A Malfunctioning Com-
     mission," California Journal  (March 1976), pp. 91-93.

Ingram, Helen M.  Patterns of Politics in Water Resource Development;
     A Case Study of New Mexico's Role in the Colorado River Basin
     Bill, Albuquerque:  University of New Mexico, Institute for
     Social Research and Development, Division of Government Research,
     December 1969.

Keys, John W. and Michael B. Bessler.  "Water Quality Management in
     the Colorado River Basin," paper presented to Colorado River
     Water Users Association, December 12-14, 1976, Las Vegas, Nevada.

King, Larry G. and R. John Hanks.  Management Practices Affecting
     Quality and Quantity of Irrigation Return Flow, Corvallis,
     Oregon:  Environmental Protection Technology Series, April
     1975.

Kleinman, Alan P., Glade J. Barney and Sigurd G. litmus.  Economic
     Impacts of Changes in Salinity Levels of the Colorado River,
     Denver:  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclama-
     tion, February 1974.

Kneese, Allen V. and Blair T. Bower.  Managing Water Quality; Economics,
     Technology, Institutions, Baltimore:  Resources for the Future,
     1968.

Kruse, E. Gordon.  Alleviation of Salt Load in Irrigation Water Return
     Flow of the Upper Colorado River Basin.  Fiscal Year 1974
     Annual Progress Report of the Research Conducted by the Agri-
     cultural Research Service, United States Department of Agricul-
     ture, Fort Collins, Colorado and U.S. Salinity Laboratory,
     Riverside, California, Fort Collins:  July 1974.

Krutilla, John V-  The Columbia River Treaty;  The Economics of an
     International River Basin Development, Baltimore:  Resources
     for the Future, 1967.

League of Women Voters of Colorado.  Colorado's Water, Denver:  1975.

"Lamm Backs Ground Water for Energy," Rocky Mountain News, December
     14, 1976, p. 33.

Leathers, Kenneth L. and Robert A. Young.  Evaluating Economic
     Impacts of Programs for Control of  Saline Irrigation Return Flows;
     A Case Study of the Grand Valley, Colorado, Denver:  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, June 1976.

Lord, William B.  "Institutional Aspects of Water Allocation in  the
     Upper Colorado River Basin:   Implications for Fish  and  Wildlife,"
     paper presented at Resources  for the Future Forum,  October  13-15,
     1976, Albuquerque, New Mexico.


                                B-7

-------
McGregor, F. Robert.  Salinity May  Stop  Colorado  From Using Its  Own
      Colorado River Water, Wright Water  Engineers, August  1975.
      Unpublished paper.

MacArthur, Gregory.  Some Ecological Implications of  the 1972  Amendments
      to  the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  Denver:   Rocky
      Mountain Center on Environment, September  17, 1973.

Maletic, John T.  Current Approaches and Alternatives to Salinity
      Management in the Colorado River Basin, Colorado:  Colorado
      School of Mines, July 1973.

Managing Irrigated Agriculture to Improve Water Quality.   Proceedings
      of  a National Conference on Managing Irrigated Agriculture  to
      Improve Water Quality, Sponsored by U.S. Environmental  Protection
      Agency and Colorado State University, May  16-18,  1972,  Washington:
      Graphics Management Corporation, 1972.

Miles, Donald E.  "Water Salinity is Everyone's Problem,"  Colorado
      Rancher and Farmer, March 1976.

National Commission on Water Quality.  Enforcement of Federal  and
      State Water Pollution Controls, Washington,  D.C.:  July 1975.

National Commission on Water Quality.  Issues and Findings;  Staff
      Draft Report, Washington, D.C.:  November 1975.

National Research Council.  Committee on Water.   Water and Choice in
      the Colorado Basin; An Example of Alternatives in Water Manage-
      ment, Washington, D.C.:  National Academy of Sciences,  1968.

Natural  Resources Journal, Volume 15, No. 1, January  1975.

Nelson,  Haley, Patterson, and Quirk, Inc., Consulting Engineers.
      Water Quality Management Plan:  Colorado River Basin, Vol.  I,
      Denver:  Colorado Department of Health, January  1975.

Nevada.  Clark County Board of Commissioners.  Clark  County  Areawide
      Salinity Control Investigation, Clark County, Nevada:   February
      12, 1976.

Nevada.  Colorado River Commission.  Colorado River Commission Laws,
      Nevada:  July 1971.

Nevada.  Colorado River Commission.  1966-1971 Report, Las Vegas:
      1972.

Nevada.  Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division
     of Colorado River Resources.   Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treat-
     ment Plant, Stage II Expansion, Pre-Design Report (Summary),
     Carson City:   July 1976.
                                B-8

-------
Nevada.  Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  Division
     of Colorado River Resources.  Selected Legal References,
     Carson City:  1975.

Nevada.  Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  Division
     of Colorado River Resources.  Selected Legal References,
     Carson City:  1976.

Nevada.  Department of Human Resources.  Bureau of Environmental Health.
     Water Pollution Control Regulations, Carson City:  Amended
     January 1975.

Nevada.  Department of Human Resources.  Procedural Regulations for
     Administration of Discharge Permits, Carson City:  January 1975.

Nevada.  Division of Water Resources.  Office of the State Engineer.
     Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Dams, Carson City:  1970.

Nevada.  Division of Water Resources.  Office of the State Engineer.
     Water for Nevada:  The Future Role of Desalting in Nevada,
     Carson City:  April 1973.

Nevada.  Division of Water Resources.  Rules and Regulations for
     Drilling Wells and Other Related Material, Carson City:  State
     Printing Office, Reprinted 1967.

Nevada.  Environmental Protection Services, Water Quality Impacts of
     Land Disturbing Activities, Carson City:  1976.

Nevada.  Office  of  the  State Engineer,  and Nevada  State  Study  Team.
     Alternative Plans  for  Water  Resource  Use,  Colorado  River  Basin
     Area V,  Carson City:   April  1974.

Nevada.  Office  of  the  State Engineer.   Water  for  Nevada:   State of
     Nevada Water Planning  Report,  Carson  City.  Special planning
     report:  Water supply  for  the  future  in southern Nevada,  December
     1970.  Report  No.  8:   Forecasts for the future—agriculture,
     January  1974.   Special information report:  Water—legal  and
     administrative  aspects,  September  1974.   Special summary  report:
     Nevada state water plan, November  1974.

Nevada.  Public  Information Office.   Department  of Conservation and
     Natural  Resources, Biennial  Report, Carson  City:  October 1974.

Nevada.  Regulations Concerning Preparation of Maps under Applications
     to Appropriate Water and Proofs of Appropriation, Carson City:
     State Printing Office,  1960 (Reprinted 1965).

Nevada.  Revised Statutes Pertaining to Division of Colorado River
     Resources, Nevada:   July 1, 1974.
                                 B-9

-------
Neville, Thomas, et al.   Powerplant Siting in the Southwest:  A
     Context for Decisions, Stanford:  Stanford University,
     October 12, 1976.

Newlin, Joseph T. and Robert C. Ward.  An Analysis of Non-Point Source
     Pollution in the Rocky Mountain Prairie Region.  Part I, Fort
     Collins:  Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service,
     February 15, 1974.

New Mexico.  Department of Fish and Game.  New Mexico Fishing Waters.

New Mexico.  Department of Fish and Game.  New Mexico Wildlife, 21:3
     (May-June 1976).

New Mexico.  Energy Resources Board.  A State Energy Plan for New
     Mexico, Santa Fe:  January 1977.

New Mexico.  Energy Resources Board.  Statement of Energy Resources
     Board Regarding the Board's Duties and Responsibilities, undated.

New Mexico.  Environmental Improvement Agency.  New Mexico Water
     Quality Management Strategy and FY  '77 Program Plan and
     Summary, New Mexico:  June 1976.

New Mexico.  Environmental Improvement Agency.  "Section 208 Detailed
     Work Plan,"  Santa Fe:  October 1976.

New Mexico.  Environmental Improvement Agency.  "Water Quality
     Control Commission Regulations," Santa Fe:   January 1977-

New Mexico.  Environmental Improvement Agency.  Water Quality Divi-
     sion.  Proposed  Amendments to  Water Quality Control Commission
     Regulations, Santa Fe:  March  17, 1976.

New Mexico.  Natural  Resource Conservation Commission.  Guide for
     New Mexico Natural Resource Conservation District  Supervisors,
     Santa Fe:  June  1976.

New Mexico.  Natural  Resource Conservation Commission.  Natural
     Resource Conservation District Act, Santa Fe: undated"!

New Mexico.  Natural  Resource Conservation Commission.  New Mexico's
     Conservation Districts; An Overview of Programs and Their
     Economic Impact. New Mexico:   1976.

New Mexico.  Office of the Commissioner  of Public Lands.  Annual
     Report, 63rd Fiscal Year. July 1, 1974 to June 30. 1975.
     Santa Fe:  December 1, 1975.
                                 B-10

-------
New Mexico.  Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands.  "Rules
     and Regulations Pertaining to Grazing and Agriculture State
     Leases," Santa Fe:  1971.

New Mexico.  Office of the Governor.  Executive Order No. 76-13,
     Santa Fe:  February 17, 1976.

New Mexico.  Office of the State Engineer.  Manual of Rules and
     Regulations Governing the Appropriation and Use of the Surface
     Waters of the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe:  Revised August
     1953.

New Mexico.  Office of the State Engineer.  Rules and Regulations
     Governing Drilling of Wells and Appropriation and Use of Ground
     Water in New Mexico, Santa Fe:  1966.

New Mexico.  Office of the State Engineer.  State Engineer of New
     Mexico, 31st Biennial Report, July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1974,
     Santa Fe:  1975.

New Mexico.  Office of the State Engineer.  Thirty-First Biennial
     Report" of the State Engineer of New Mexico, for the 61st and
     62nd Fiscal Years, July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1974, Santa Fe:
     November 30, 1974.

New Mexico.  Oil Conservation Commission.  "Rules and Regulations,"
     Santa Fe:  January 1976.

New Mexico.  State Land Office.  Our Public Trust Lands, Santa Fe:
     undated.

New Mexico.  Water Quality Control Commission.  Continuing Planning
     Process for Water Quality Management, Santa Fe:  1976.

New Mexico.  Water Quality Control Commission.  New Mexico Water
     Quality Standards, Santa Fe:  August 1973.

New Mexico.  Water Quality Control Commission.  The State of New
     Mexico—Continuing Planning Process, Santa Fe:  March 1976.

New Mexico.  Water Quality Control Commission.  Water Quality in
     New Mexico, Report for Submission  to the Congress of the United
     States, Santa Fe:  May 1975.


Paff, Donald.  "Second Stage of Colorado River Project Will Double
     Capacity of System to Provide Water for Southern Nevada,"
     Nevada Government Today (Summer 1975), pp. 8-10.
                                  B-ll

-------
 Radosevich, George E.,  et al.,  eds.  Colorado Water Laws; a Compilation
      of Statutes, Regulations,  Compacts, and Selected Cases, (Information
      Series No.  17.)   Fort Collins:  Colorado State University, Center
      for Economics Education and Environmental Resources Center, 1975.

 Radosevich,  George E. ,  et  al.   Economic,  Political,  and Legal Aspects
      of  Colorado  Water  Law,  Completion  Report Series,  No.  44, Fort
      Collins,  Colorado:  February  1973.

 Radosevich, George E.,  et al.,  eds.  Evolution and Administration of
      Colorado Water Law 1876-1976, Fort Collins,  Colorado:  Water
      Resources Publications, 1976.

 Radosevich, George E.  and Gaylord  V.  Skogerboe.   Achieving Irrigation
      Return Flow Quality Control Through Improved Legal Systems,
      Fort Collins: Resources Development and Administration, Inc.,
      April 1977  draft  report.

Rechard, Paul A.,  Calvin E. Ragsdale, and Floyd A. Bishop.  Documents
     on  the Use and Control of Wyoming's Interstate Streams:  Compacts.
     Treaties, and Court Decrees,  Cheyenne:  Wyoming Water Resources
     Research Institute, and Land and Water Law Center, 1971.

Reynolds, S.E., New Mexico State Engineer.  "Letter to  Secretary of
     the Interior, Washington, D.C.,"from New Mexico Interstate
     Stream Commission, July 16, 1976.

Reynolds, S.E., New Mexico State Engineer.  "Letter to  Subcommittee
     on Energy Research and Water Resources, U.S. Senate," from State
     Engineer's Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico:  July 3,  1975.

 Reynolds,  S.E., New Mexico State Engineer.   "Statement  on the Opera-
      tion of  the  San Juan-Chama  Project,  Colorado, New Mexico,  and
      the Related  Impacts in  the  San Juan  River Basin,"  presented
      to  the  Subcommittee on  Energy Research and Water Resources  of
      the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, June  12,


Robie, Ronald B.   "Flood Control and the Department of  Water  Re-
     sources," speech to California Central Valleys Flood Control
     Association,  June  25, 1975.

Robie, Ronald B.    "Ground Water  Resources of California:  Opportu-
     nities and Obstacles to Optimum Use," speech to 10th Biennial
     Conference on Ground Water, September 11, 1975.

Robie  Ronald B.   "Of  Dinosaurs and Edsels," speech to  Spring Legis-
                       °f the ^^ation of California Water Agencies,
                                 B-12

-------
Robie, Ronald B.  "One State:  One Water Commitment," speech to
     Water and Energy Committee of the Los Angeles Chamber of Com-
     merce, June 16, 1975.

Robie, Ronald B.  "Power and  the  State Water Project," speech to
     Annual Meeting Luncheon  of the California Water Resources
     Association, June 13,  1975.

Robie, Ronald B.  "The Tread  of Mighty Armies," speech to Annual
     Conference of California Associations of Reclamation Entities
     of Water  (WATERCARE),  June 24, 1975.

Russell, Clifford S., David G. Arey and Robert W. Kates.  Drought
     and Water Supply; Implications of the Massachusetts Experience
     for Municipal Planning,  Baltimore:  Resources for the Future,
     1970.

Salt River Project.  "A Valley Reborn," Phoenix;  1975.

Schmisseur, Wilson E.  Economic and Water Use Impacts Associated with
     Alternative Water Pricing Policies of Established Irrigation
     Districts, Corvallis,  Oregon:  Water Resources Research
     Institute, September 1976.

Schneider, Richard J.  "Delay in  Starting Pawnee Plant is Rejected,"
     Rocky Mountain News, April 9, 1977, p. 32.

SINE.  Power Plant Siting in  the  United States, Atlanta;  June 1976,

Skogerboe, Gaylord V., et al.  Evaluation of Irrigation Scheduling
     for Salinity Control in  Grand Valley,  (Environmental Protection
     Technology Series), Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency, June 1974.

"Soil Saver Need Cited," The  Denver Post, November 18, 1976, p. 28.

Thomson, Thyra, comp.  1976 Wyoming Official Directory, Cheyenne:
     State of Wyoming, Office of  the Secretary of State, 1975-

Trelease, Frank L.  Water Law;  Resources and Environmental Protec-
     tion, (American Casebook Series) St. Paul, Minnesota.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.   Agricultural  Stabilization and
     Conservation  Service.  Arizona  State  ASCS  Office.   State Pro-
     gram  Handbook,  Rural Environmental Programs,  Phoenix:   June
     1976.   Il-AZ  (RE) Revision  1.]
                                 B-13

-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Agricultural Stabilization  and
     Conservation Service. California State ASCS Office,   1976 AGP
     County Practices and Cost Share Rates, Davis, California:
     February 1976.  Photocopy.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Agricultural Stabilization  and  Con-
     servation Service.  Colorado State ASCS Office.  State  Pro-
     gram Handbook, Colorado Agricultural Conservation Program,
     Denver:  May 1976.   [1-CO (ACP) Revision 2.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Agricultural Stabilization  and
     Conservation Service.  Nevada State ASCS Office.  State Program
     Handbook, Agricultural Conservation Program, Reno:  September
     1976.  [1-NV (ACP).]

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Agricultural Stabilization  and
     Conservation Service.  New Mexico State ASCS Office.  State
     Program Handbook, New Mexico Agricultural Conservation  Pro-
     gram, Albuquerque:  April 1975.  With Amendments, September,
     October and November 1975 and March 1976.   [1-NM (ACP).]

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Agricultural Stabilization  and
     Conservation Service.  Utah ASCS State Office.  State Program
     Handbook, Utah Agricultural Conservation Program, Salt  Lake City:
     October 1976.  [1-UT (ACP).]

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Agricultural Stabilization  and
     Conservation Service.  Wyoming State ASCS Office.  State
     Program Handbook, Wyoming Agricultural Conservation Program,
     Casper:  January 1976.   [1-WY (ACP) Revision 2.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Economic Research Service.  Forest
     Service, Soil Conservation Service, Utah.  Appendix I,  Climate,
     Sevier River Basin, Utah, May 1969.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Irrigation Return Flow Water Quality
     as Affected by Irrigation Water Management in the Grand Valley
     of Colorado,  Fort Collins:  October 1976.   [EPA-1AG-D4-0545.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Natural Resource Economics  Division.
     Economic Research Service.  Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen
     Western States, Three Vols., Washington, D.C.:  1971.
                                  B-14

-------
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha District.
     The Metropolitan Denver and South Platte River and Tributaries
     Water and Related Land Resources Study, Vol. V, Annex C:  Un-
     certainties Associated with Water and Related Land Resources
     Planning, April 1975.  Vol. V, Annex D:  Characteristics and
     Problems of the Water Supply System—Main Report and Appendix,
     March 1975.  Also:  Needs Evaluation and Supplement to the Plan
     of Study, May 1975.

 U.S. Department of the Army.   Office of the Chief of Engineers.
      Digest of Water Resources Policy, Washington:  January 1975.
      Photocopied excerpts.

 U.S. Department of the Army.   Water Resources Development—Colorado,
      Omaha, Nebraska:   U.S.  Department of the Army,  Missouri River
      Division Corps of Engineers,  1975.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Bureau of Land Management,   Interim
      Report:  The Feasibility of Salinity Control from National Resource
      Lands in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Denver:   October 1,  1976.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Bureau of Reclamation.   Colorado
      River Quality Improvement Program.   Status Report, Washington:
      January 1974.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Bureau of Reclamation.   Colorado
      River W.ater Quality Improvement Program,  Environmental
      Statement, Washington,  D.C.:   1976.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Desalting Handbook for  Planners,
      Washington,  D.C.:  Government Printing Office,  May 1972.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Bureau of Reclamation, Lower
      Colorado Region.   Final EIS,  Colorado River Basin Salinity
      Control Project,  Title 1, 1975.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Bureau of Reclamation.  Lower
      Colorado Region.   The Villain is Salinity, Nevada:  February
      1976.  Las Vegas Wash Unit Informational Pamphlet.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Bureau of Reclamation, Region 4.
      San Juan Investigation, Utah and Colorado, Salt Lake City:
      September 1969.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Colorado River Quality Improvement
      Program—Draft Environmental Statement, March 5, 1976.

 U.S. Department of the Interior.  Critical Water Problems Facing
      the Eleven Western States; Executive Summary, Washington, D.C.:
      Government Printing Office, April 1975.
                                   B-15

-------
U.S. Department of the Interior.  Critical Water Problems Facing
     the Eleven Western States; Westwide Study Report, Washington,
     D.C.:  Government Printing Office, April 1975.

 U.S.  Department  of  the Interior.   The Legal  Implications of
      Atmospheric Water Resources  Development and  Management,
      Tucson:   Weather  Modification Law Project, October  1968.

U.S. Department of the Interior.  Office of  Saline Water.   The
     A-B-Seas of Desalting, Washington, D.C.:  Government Printing
     Office, 1968.

U.S. Department of the Interior.  Progress Reports on Colorado River
     Basin Salinity Control Act—Title II, and Colorado River Quality
     Improvement Program, Progress reports P.L. 93-320, Title II, and
     CRWQIP, Washington, D.C.:  1975.

U.S. Department  of the  Interior.  Quality of Water,  Colorado River
     Basin.  Progress Report No.  7, Washington, D.C.:  January 1975.

U.S. Department  of the  Interior.  Water for  Energy Management Team.
     Report on Water for Energy in  the Upper Colorado River Basin,
     July 1974.

U.S. Department  of the  Interior.  Water for  Tomorrow;  Colorado State
     Water Plan,  [Report done in  cooperation with the State of
     Colorado.]  Phase  I:  Appraisal  Report, February 1974.  Phase
     II:  Report on Legal and Institutional  Considerations, August
     1974.

U.S. Department  of the  Interior.  Western U.S. Water Plan;  1971 Progress
     Report, Washington, D.C.:  Government Printing  Office, 1971.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Denver Regional EIS  for
     Wastewater  Facilities and the  Clean Water Plan.  Denver:
     June 1977.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Evaluation of Canal Lining for^
     Salinity Control in Grand Valley, Washington, D.C.:   Government
     Printing Office,  October 1972.   [EPA-R2-72-047.]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Evaluation of Drainage for
     Salinity Control in Grand Valley, Washington, D.C.:   Government
     Printing Office,  August 1974.  [EPA-660/2-74-049.]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Evaluation of Irrigation
     Scheduling for Salinity Control in Grand Valley, Washington,
     D.C.:  Government Printing Office, June 1974.   [EPA-660/2-74-052. ]
                                 B-16

-------
U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Managing  Irrigated Agriculture
      to  Improve  Water Quality, Proceedings  May 16-18,  1972, Washington,
      B.C.:   1972.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   The  Mineral Quality Problem in
     the Colorado River Basin.  Washington,  B.C.:  Government Printing
     Office, 1971.  Appendix A:  Natural and Man-Made  Conditions
     Affecting Mineral Quality.  Appendix B:  Physical and Economic
     Aspects.  Appendix C:  Salinity Control and Management Aspects.
     Appendix B:  Comments on  Braft Report.  Summary Report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  National  Conference on Irrigation
     Return Flow Quality Management, Proceedings  May 16-19,  1977.
     Fort Collins:  1977.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Office of Research and Bevelop-
     ment  (Corvallis, Oregon).   Management  Practices Affecting
      Quality and Quantity  of  Irrigation Return Flow, Corvallis,
      Oregon:  April 1975.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Office of Research and Bevelop-
     ment.   Selected Irrigation Return of Low Quality  Abstracts,
      1972-1973.   Third Annual Issue, Washington, B.C.:   Government
      Printing Office, June 1974.   [EPA-660/2-74-049. ]

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   Office of Research and Monitor-
     ing.   Irrigation Management for Control of Quality  of Irrigation
     Return Flow, Washington,  B.C.:  Government Printing Office, June 1973.
      [EPA-R2-73-265.]

 U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.  Office of Water  and Hazardous
      Materials.  Federal Guidelines,  Operation and Maintenance of
      Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Washington,  B.C.:  Government
      Printing Office, 1974.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Region IX.   San Francisco,
      California.  Letter to Mr. James Parrott, Birector, Clark
      County Sanitation Bistrict No. 1, Las Vegas,  Nevada.   Undated.

 U.S. National Water  Commission.  Water Policies for the Future,
      Washington, B.C.:  June 1973.

 Upper Colorado  River Commission.  Twentieth Annual Report,  Salt Lake
      City:   September 30,  1976.

 Utah,   Board of State Lands.   Rules and Regulations Governing the
      Issuance of Mineral Leases, Utah:  Amended September 20, 1976.
                                  B-17

-------
Utah.  Board of State Lands.  Rules and Regulations  Governing
     the Issuance of Special Use Leases, Utah:  May  15,  1974,
     Amended February 19, 1975.

Utah.  Board of Water Resources.  The State of Utah  Water,  1975,
     January 1976.

Utah.  Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
     Utah Facts:  An Introductory Handbook to the  Industrial
     Development Information System, 1976.

Utah.  Bureau of Water Quality.  Water Quality Report, April 1975.

Utah.  Department of Natural Resources, Division of  Oil, Gas and
     Mining.  The Oil and Gas Conservation Act, The  Mined Land
     Reclamation Act, and The General Rules, and Regulations and
     Rules of Practice and Procedure, 1976.

Utah.  Department  of  Social  Services.   Environmental  Health Services
     Branch.  Bureau of Water Quality.  Water Quality Report, Salt
     Lake City:  April 1975.

Utah.  Division of Parks and Recreation.  Utah's State Park System,
     June 1976.

Utah.  Division of Water Resources.   "Water for Energy^-A State
     Perspective," paper by  Barry C.  Saunders,  October 1975.

Utah.  Division of Water Rights.  Thirty-Ninth Biennial  Report of  the
     Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City:  November 1974.

Utah.  Governor's Conference on Sediment and Erosion Control, Salt
     Lake City:  March 28-29, 1974.

Utah.  Office of the State Engineer.  Water Laws of  Utah and Inter-
     state Compacts and Treaties, 2nd edition, Salt  Lake City:
     1964.

Utah.  Outdoor  Recreation Agency.  Outdoor Recreation in Utah;
     The  Second Plan, 1970-1985.  prepared  by Tharold E.  Green,  Jr.
     and  J.  Stanley  Elmer,  April  1,  1973.

Utah.  Schick  International  for  the  Southeastern Utah Economic
     Development District.   1975, Agricultural Development Project,
     December  1975.

Utah.  Rules of Procedure for Hearings  before  the  Division of
     Water Rights of the State of Utah.  February 8,  1974.   Photocopy.
                                 B-18

-------
 Utah.   State Division of Health.  Code of Waste Disposal Regulations,
      Part I—Definitions and General Requirements, 1965, reprinted
      July 1974; Part II—Standards of Quality for Waters of the
      State, 1969.  Photocopy.

 Utah.   State Division of Health.  "Utah Water Pollution Control Act,"
      1974.  Photocopy.

 Utah.   State of Utah.  Water Laws of Utah and Interstate Compacts
      and Treaties, prepared by Wayne D. Griddle and Dallin W.  Jensen,
      1964.

 Utah State University.  "Rangeland Development Fund," Photocopy,  1976.

 Utah State University.  Water Research Laboratory.  Colorado River;
      Regional Assessment Study, Logan, Utah:   October 1975.  (In 4
      volumes.)

Utah.  Wildlife Resources  Code  of  Utah,  1975-

Valentine,  Vernon E.   "Impacts  of  Colorado  River  Salinity,"  Journal
     of  the Irrigation and Drainage Division,  ASCE, Vol. 100, No.  IR4,
     Proceedings Paper 10985, December,  1974,  pp.  495-510.

Vincent, James R.  and James D.  Russell.   "Alternatives  for  Salinity
     Management in the Colorado River  Basin,"  Water Resources Bulletin,
      7:4 (August 1971), pp. 856-866.

 Wengert, Norman, and Robert M.  Lawrence.  Regional Factors  in Siting
      and Planning Energy Facilities  in the Eleven Western  States:
      A Report to the Western Interstate Nuclear Board.   Fort Collins,
      Colorado:  November 1976.

Western  States Water  Council.   Western States  Water Requirements for
     Energy Development to  1990, Salt  Lake  City,  Utah:   November 1974.

Wheeler, William H.   Arizona  Water Commission  Fifth Annual  Report,
     1974-1975,  Phoenix:   Arizona  Water  Commission, 1975.

 Wilkinson,  Lawrence E.   Western States Energy  Resource Development,
      Lakewood:  Western Interstate Nuclear Board, September 1976.

Williams, J. Stewart.   The  Natural Salinity of the Colorado  River,
     Logan:  Utah  State University Water Research Laboratory, June 1975.

Wynkoop, Steve,  "Utah Proposal:  Diversion of  Water for  Energy
     Studied,"  The Denver Post, December 15, 1976, p. 29.
                                B-19

-------
 Wyoming.   Commissioner of Public Lands.   Policy, Rules and Regulations
      for  Grazing and Agricultural Lands, Cheyenne:  October 3, 1968.

 Wyoming.   Commissioner of Public Lands.   Rules and Instructions
      for  Rights of Way,  Cheyenne:  January 1, 1974.

 Wyoming.   Commissioner of Public Lands.   Rules and Regulations
      Governing the Issuance of Mineral Leases (Except Oil and Gas
      and  Oil Shale),  Cheyenne:  May 6, 1971.

 Wyoming.   Commissioner of Public Lands.   Rules and Regulations:
      Governing the Issuance of Oil and Gas Leases, Cheyenne:   April
      1971.

 Wyoming.   Commissioner of Public Lands.   Rules for Special Use
      Leasing of State Lands,  Cheyenne:   undated.

 Wyoming.   Department  of  Economic Planning and Development.   1975
      Fiscal Year Report,  Cheyenne:   1975.

 Wyoming.   Department  of  Environmental Quality.   1975 Annual Report,
      Cheyenne:   September 1975.

 Wyoming.   Department  of  Environmental Quality.   Land Quality Divi-
      sion.   Wyoming Land Quality Rules and Regulations.   Cheyenne:
      1975.   Photocopy.

 Wyoming.   Department  of  Environmental Quality.   Rules of Practice and
      Procedure,  Cheyenne:   undated.

 Wyoming.   Department  of  Environmental Quality.   Water Pollution
      Control in Wyoming,  Cheyenne:   undated.

 Wyoming.   Department  of  Environmental Quality.   Wyoming  Environmental
      Quality Act,  1973,  as amended by the 1974 through 1977 Wyoming^
      Legislative Sessions,  Cheyenne:   1977.

 Wyoming.   Department  of  Environmental Quality.   Wyoming  Water Quality
      Rules and  Regulations.  1974, 1975 (Chapters IV and  V), 1976
      (Chapter III).

Wyoming.  Office of the State Engineer.  Annual Report of the State
     Engineer, 1975, Cheyenne:  June 30, 1975.

Wyoming.  Office of the State Planning Coordinator.  "Examination of
     Wyoming's Regulatory Permitting Process and Possible Alternatives."
     Cheyenne:  August 1976.

Wyoming.  Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.   "Rules and  Regulations,"
     undated.
                                 B-20

-------
Wyoming.  Industrial Siting Council.  Rules and Regulations, Wyoming:
     September 10, 1975.

Wyoming.  "The Legal Basis for Planning and Land Use Control in Wyoming,"
     Cheyenne:  November 1975.

Young, Robert A., et al.  Economic and Institutional Analysis of
     Colorado Water Quality Management, Fort Collins:  Colorado
     State University Environmental Resources Center, March 1975.
                                  B-21

-------
                            APPENDIX C




            ACTIONS INVESTIGATED AND FOUND NOT FEASIBLE







        The seven actions  (numbered 22 through 28) which appear in




this appendix were part of a DRI-prepared list of 33 state and local




management actions proposed by various sources that appeared likely




to reduce salinity loading in the Colorado River Basin.  These ac-




tions have been investigated and, on the basis of the criteria




defined in Chapter IV, have been found infeasible for implementa-




tion in the Colorado River Basin.  We are describing these actions




in order to explain our reasoning as to their infeasibility.  The




matrix on authority for each action is included for future reference




in case conditions in any  state should change and the action thus




should become feasible.
                                C-l

-------
    22.  Establish an interstate salinity compact  to  develop uniform
        programs for controlling discharges  and enforcing in-stream
        salinity standards.

        The possibility of a new interstate  compact  dealing with

 salinity was brought up and discussed at an  early meeting of this

 study's Advisory Board.  However,  investigation determined that  such

 action would require not only new federal legislation, but  also

 favorable legislative action in each of the Colorado River  Basin

 states.  The process is nearly impossible to implement and new legis-

 lation is required (in violation of a basic study criterion) thus

 the proposed action is infeasible.

        In addition,  water officials in each state have reacted with

uniformly negative comments about  the compact approach.  It is a broadly

based feeling that the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum is meeting

the needs of interstate cooperation in the  best possible and most

practicable manner.   No matrix is included  for this  action.
                               C-2

-------
   23.  Control phreatophytes along streams and irrigation
        canals to reduce quantity of water lost through
        transpiration.

        This action calls for the physical removal of water-consuming

plants along streams, rivers, and man-made water conveyance systems.

Although phreatophyte removal would not affect salt loading, such

removal would leave more freshwater in streams to dilute salinity.

The action can be fairly costly, particularly if done on a large

scale.  Its proposal was met with resistance by state game and fish

officials because of the destruction of the animal and fish habitat

and a breaking of the ecological chain.  Environmental interests

oppose this action for the same reasons, so the action is politically

difficult to implement, if not infeasible.

        Phreatophyte removal on federal land faces the requirement

that such habitat destruction must be mitigated, e.g., by creating

compensating habitat elsewhere, which renders federal action costly

and relatively ineffective in saving water, although this mitigation

requirement does not apply to state and local actions on non-federal

lands.
                               C-3

-------
ACTION
23. Control
phreatophytes
along streams
and irrigation
canals to re-
duce quantity
of water lost
through trans-
piration.




n
i


















e
Bi
O
E
CD
ARIZONA
ARS 17-231
C. Coordinate
with Arizona water
commission with
respect to mat-
ters involving wa-
ter development
and use, restora-
tion, and pollu-
tion abatement
injurious to
wildlife.
General





CALIFORNIA
No specific
statute cited.
















COLORADO
No specific
statute cited.
















NEVADA
No specific
statute cited.
















NEW MEXICO
No specific
statute cited.
















UTAH
No specific
statute cited.
















WYOMING
No specific
statute cited.

















-------
   24.  Establish maintenance of adequate  (or minimum) stream
        flow as a beneficial use to promote water quality goals.
        Stream flow maintenance may also benefit fisheries.

        This action was proposed on the assumption that a policy of

minimum stream flow,  although primarily intended to maintain fish

life, would limit the extent of water diversion and thus assure

some additional dilution of salinity.  It would not, however, affect

salt loading.

        Without authority to maintain a minimum flow rate in a

waterway, the state fish and game commissions realize they are serious-

ly hampered in protecting any fish that inhabit the waterway.  Indi-

rectly, therefore, if all water becomes appropriated, the flow is

reduced and the concentration of salts in the remaining water is

increased.

        Three basin states  (Arizona, California and Colorado) have

some authority permitting minimum flows.  However, there is no con-

sistent set of standards throughout the seven states that relates

the status of fish and wildlife to the other competing uses of water.

Minimum stream flow legislation has obvious advantages from an en-

vironmental viewpoint  and it is possible that the states' authority

to maintain minimum stream flows may be extended to preserve fish,

wildlife and riparian  vegetation.  However, it appears that such

action could be extended only through new state legislation, not

through state or local administrative action.  Because a basic cri-

erion for actions proposed in this report is that the action be

feasible under existing state law,  this action is classified as

infeasible.
                              C-5

-------
        Other activities of the fish and game commission of the




compact states do not directly relate to the salinity problem.  In




fact, in several instances, high salinity levels are perceived




to be beneficial to fish.  These higher salinity levels apparently




control aquatic disease organisms that otherwise would reduce fish




populations and inhibit species growth.




        It appears, in summary, that new minimum stream flow legis-




lation may indirectly benefit salinity levels,  by avoiding greater




concentration of salts.  However, other activities and authority of




the state fish and wildlife commissions are unlikely to have a




significant impact on salinity control.  Their  impact will likely




continue to be at the marginal level.
                             C-6

-------
ACTION
24. Establish
maintenance of
adequate (or
minimum) stream
flow as a bene-
ficial use to
promote water
quality goals.
Stream flow
maintenance may
also benefit
fisheries.




o
i
-*j


























>>
^
a:
O
PC
<










ARIZONA
ARS 45-2501
The legislature
declares that the
development of an
adequate supply of
water for fish,
wildlife and a
variety of other
purposes is vital
for the well being
of Arizona
citizens .

General















CALIFORNIA
F&G 5937
The owner of any
dam shall allow
sufficient water
at all times to
pass through a
fishway to keep
in good condition
any fish that may
be planted or
exist below the
dam.
WC 1243
The use of water
for recreation
and preservation
and enhancement
of fish and
wildlife is a
beneficial use.
The board shall
take into account
the impact on
fish and wildlife
of its actions
relating to water
available for
appropriation.
General
COLORADO
CRS 37-92-102
(3) Does not
specifically
address minimum
stream flow.
However, does give
Colo. Water
Conservation Board
authority to
appropriate and
acquire such wa-
ters of natural
streams as may be
required to pre-
serve the natural
environment to a
reasonable degree.

General










NEVADA
No statute cited.




























NEW MEXICO
No statute cited.




























UTAH
No statue cited.




























WYOMING
No statute cited.





























-------
   25.   Establish a division of the Attorney General's Office,
        assigned the specific function of enforcing "beneficial
        use" limit of water rights.

        This action was proposed on the hypothesis that legal

action to enforce the "beneficial use" limit of water rights,

i.e., reduce waste from over-application of water, might be en-

hanced through a specific assignment of responsibility to a new

organizational subdivision of the state Attorney General's

Office.  However, investigation has shown that the initiative

for enforcement should continue to come from the operating agency

(e.g., State Engineer's Office) charged with responsibility for

administering water allocations.  The operating agency will re-

quest legal assistance if necessary.

        Each state has assigned at least one assistant attorney

general to water matters, or has provided a legal staff for the

agencies involved.  Action #25 is unnecessary, and would lead to

duplication of administrative authority between the responsible

agency and the Attorney General's Office.
                               C-8

-------
ACTION
25. Establish a
division of the
office of attor-
ney general as-
signed the spe-
cific function of
enforcing the
"beneficial use"
limit of water
rights . Such
enforcement would
be directed to
eliminating water
wastage and pro-
moting efficient
water use.
0
t
vQ

























>-)
x.
E
=
<











ARIZONA
41-192(4)(1)
Attorney general
is legal advisor
and renders legal
services to all
state departments.
(B) (1) Attorney
general may organ-
ize the Dept. of
Law into special
divisions .
(E) No state
agency, other than
wa t er commi s s ion
and industrial
commission shall
retain counsel.
41-192.01
Arizona Power
Authority may also
employ counsel.
May institute pro-
ceedings even in
face of opposition
of state agencies.
State Land Dept.
v. McFate (348 P2d
912).
Specific
CALIFORNIA
Gov. Code 12511
Attorney general
\as charge of all
legal matters of
state except
3oard of Regents
and those agencies
authorized to
employ attorneys.
Code 12600(b)
Attorney general
directed to pro-
tect natural
resources of
the state.
Code 12606
Attorney general
can intervene in
any action con-
cerning pollution
or adverse envi-
ronmental effects .
Code 12612 (a)
Attorney general
may intervene in
any administrative,
licensing or
other proceeding.
Sped fi c
COLORADO
24-31-101(1) (A)
Attorney general
to be legal
counsel to all
state departments ,
(3) May appoint
assistants and
deputies when
necessary.

Nonspecific


















NEVADA
232.080 Attorney
general counsel to
dept. of conserva-
tion and natural
resources .
445.314 Attorney
general counsel to
state environment-
al commission and
dept. of human
resources — will
assist in en-
forcement when
requested.

Nonspeci fi c













NEW MEXICO
4-3-4 Attorney
general may employ
assistant with
consent of the
governor . Other
agencies may not
hire attorneys
unless authorized
by law.
4-3-5 May appoint
deputy attorney
generals when
necessary.

Nonspecific














UTAH
67-5-1, 2
General support
to state depart-
ments .

General























WYOMING
9-125 (a)
Attorney general
to represent the
state in suits
and to assist
the various
departments of
state government.
9-132
Attorney general
may appoint
assistants as
necessary and
may (9-134) assign
such assistants
to different
departments.

General











-------
   26.  To reduce salinity from agriculture, control types of
        fertilizer used, to avoid excess salinity in return flow.

        The authority for states to control the types of fertilizer

used on farms, as a salinity control measure, is almost nonexistent,

requiring a labored interpretation of "hazardous" or "undesirable"

substances.  Moreover, the consensus throughout the basin is that

fertilizer is a minimal contributor to salinity.  Where there is

evidence of heavy fertilizer use, as in the Palo Verde Valley, the

Palo Verde Irrigation District is encouraging more efficient use.

In many areas of the Colorado River Basin, farm economics severely

limit the amount of fertilizer applied.

        Generally, this action is considered ineffective, difficult

to administer and monitor, and, in many states, illegal.
                                 010

-------
ACTION
26. Control
types of
fertilizer
used, to avoid {
excess salin- ;
ity in return '
flow.


j

|


>•
n ~~
\ '-!
h-1 &
l-i O
^
',<:
1
1



;
ARIZONA
ARS 3-278
Gives power to
Commission of
Agriculture and
Horticulture to
control fertilizer
materials con-
taining "undesir-
able substances."

Nonspecific













CALIFORNIA
FAC 14004.5
ncludes as re-
tricted materials
hose causing
hazards to sub-
equent crops
hrough persistent
oil residues.
FAC 14006
permits regulation
of use of re-
stricted material.
FAC Chapter 5,
specifically deal-
.ng with fertiliz-
ing materials, has
no reference to
salinity.

Nonspecific




COLORADO
CRS 35-1-104
Authorizes Dept .
of Agriculture to
enforce state laws
concerning "the
inspection of
commercial fertil-
izers, " but this
does not give
authority to
control use of
saline fertilizers.

General










NEVADA
NRS 588.010
Authorizes Dept.
of Agriculture to
test commercial
fertilizers.
NRS 548.430 (5)
authorizes con-
servation dis-
tricts to adopt
regulations "for
such other means,
measures , opera-
tions and pro-
grams as may
assist con-
servation of re-
newable natural
resources and
>r event or con-
trol . . .
sedimentation in
the conservation
districts."
General
NEW MEXICO
NMSA 45-13-26
Authorizes the
N.M. Dept. of
Agriculture to
stop sale of any
commercial fertil-
izer in violation
of the N.M. Fertil-
izer Act, but no
provisions deal
with saline
fertilizers.

General










UTAH
UCA 4-19-22
Authorizes the
Utah Dept. of
Agriculture to
stop sale of any
fertilizer in
violation of the
Utah Commerical
Fertilizer Act,
but no provisions
deal with saline
fertilizers .

General










WYOMING
No statutory
authority.























-------
   27.  Treat irrigation return flow for salinity, through
        ion-exchange or solar distillation processes.

        Except  for  adoption  of  the  Forum standards which do not

specifically  give authority  for water  treatment,  four of the basin

states lack statutory authority in  agricultural and  special con-

servancy district statutes to treat irrigation return flow for

salinity.  In California, Utah  and  Wyoming, authority to treat

or purify water appears to be present.  Nevertheless, there is no

serious consideration being  given to state or local  treatment of

irrigation return flow for salinity, anywhere in  the Colorado River

Basin.  Most  authorities consider such action impractical from the

viewpoint of  cost and energy use.   Where salinity treatment is

considered, it  is as a research program (as in New Mexico) or as

an action to  be taken by the federal government for political

treaty reasons  (as  at Yuma,  on  the  Wellton-Mohawk Canal) rather

than  economic reasons.  California  and the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation have studied desalinization, but of geothermal water

rather than agricultural return flow.

        If desalinization of saline or brackish water comes about,

it may be done  sometime in the  future as a last resort technique

to increase fresh water supplies for municipal or industrial use.

Nevada, in its  long range planning  for water for  the Las Vegas

Valley, is considering among other  potential strategies the de-

salting of ocean water to exchange  for California rights to Colorado

River water.  At such an extreme point, desalinization of any saline

water would be  practical, including irrigation return flow if a

right to it can be  obtained.


                               C-12

-------
ACTION
27. Treat irri-
gation return
flow for salin-
ity, through
ion exchange or
solar distilla-
tion processes.





n
I
Ul















D
rj
S3
o
£
ARIZONA
ARS R9-21-103
Adopts Forum stan-
dards on salinity
control. No spe-
cific treatment
authority is given.

No authority









CALIFORNIA
WC 22078 Autho-
rizes irrigation
districts may
treat and purify
any water for
the beneficial
use of the dis-
trict.

Specific







COLORADO
CRS 25-8-506 (1)
Return flow not
controlled by
state; federal
regulations
govern.

Wo authority









NEVADA
No authority in
agricultural
statutes.














NEW MEXICO
No authority in
agricultural
statutes.














UTAH
UCA 73-10-4
Authorizes the
Board of Water Re-
sources to con-
struct conserva-
tion projects
which will con-
serve and utilize
water resources to
benefit citizens
of Utah.
General





WYOMING
WSA 41-1.42
Creates water
development pro-
gram providing
state financing
and construction
of facilities to
abate water
pollution.

Specific







-------
    28.   Require reuse of wastewater to reduce municipal
         water demand.

         This action was suggested on the assumption that  municipal

 wastewater reuse would reduce the demand for freshwater and  thus

 leave greater quantities of freshwater available to dilute saline

 river flows.  However, salinity benefits here are questionable, at

 best, as each time the water is run through the municipal system,

 it will pick up salts and it ultimately will have to be returned

 to the river system, since there is no likelihood of a "no return

 flow" policy for municipal wastewater.  The probable ineffective-

 ness of Action #28 in reducing salt loading causes it to  be  classi-

 fied as infeasible.

         There are other barriers, as well.   Potable reuse of muni-

 cipal wastewater is likely to occur about 1990,  but the known

 processes are costly, still have not reliably overcome health

 hazards, and face likely public resistance to their implementation

 unless careful preparations are made beforehand.

         In the Colorado River Basin states, statutes in the water

resources area were  silent on the subject of municipal reuse.  The

Denver Water Department has for some years been a leader in waste-

water reuse research; reuse is expected to be necessary in Nevada

before 1995; and California has an active exploratory program into

all aspects of reuse; but elsewhere in the basin there is little

evidence of encouragement of municipal reuse as a policy.
                               C-14

-------
ACTION
28. Require re-
use of wastewater
to reduce munici-
pal water demand.







i
Ln

















e
ta
o
§
ARIZONA
No authority in
statutes on water
resources con-
servation and
allocation.











CALIFORNIA
No authority in
statutes on water
resources con-
servation and
allocation.











COLORADO
No authority in
statutes on water
resources conser-
vation and alloca-
tion. Colorado
court decisions
have allowed
reuse only of
water imported
from another
drainage basin.





NEVADA
No authority in
statutes on water
resources conser-
vation and al-
location.











NEW MEXICO
No authority in
statutes on water
resources conser-
vation and alloca-
tion.











UTAH
No authority in
statutes on water
resources conser-
vation and alloca-
tion.











WYOMING
No authority in
statutes on water
resources conser-
vation and alloca-
tion.












-------
                                            . titruit I  L/M I rt
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 . REPORT
  EPA -  908/3=27=002-
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

 State  and Local Management  Actions to Reduce Colorado
   River Salinity
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  J.  Gordon Milliken
  Loretta C. Lohman
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                         Stephen A.  Lyon
                         George W.  Sherk, Jr.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Industrial Economics Division
  Denver Research Institute
  University of Denver
  Denver, Colorado   80208
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
                                                           5. REPORT DATE
                                                             September 1977
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                           11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                              68-01-3578
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. VIII
  1860  Lincoln Street
  Denver, Colorado   80295
                                                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                              Final
                                                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                              EPA
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT

       This report identifies and provides analysis  of State and local management  ac-
  tions which may be  taken state-by-state to reduce  salinity in the Colorado River.
  The analysis and evaluation procedures focus  on management actions to reduce salinity
  and only on actions which may be taken within the  scope of existing legislation.
  The management actions were discussed and amended  on the bases of technical feasi-
  bility, cost, legality,  effectiveness in salinity  control, scope of applicability,
  and political and social implications.

       Of over thirty possible State and local  management actions, considered, twelve
  have been proposed  for implementation in the  Colorado River Basin.  The remaining
  actions were considered  as already underway in each,  or some, of the Colorado River
  Basin states; actions not feasible in the Colorado River Basin; or actions determined
  to be out-of-scope of this study.   A statement of  each of these actions followed by
  a brief summary of current status  or reasoning for not including with actions pro-
  posed for implementation is provided in the report.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                         c. COSATI Field/Group
 Management  Actions State & Local
 Implementation        Water Quality
 Legal                    Standards
 Administrative        Irrigation Return
 Political                Flow
 Salinity               Wastewater Planning
 Water Quality/Quantity^  (Sec. 208)
                                                 Colorado  River
                                                 Colorado  River Basin
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Distribution Unlimited
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                                Unclassified
                                                                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                                         	370
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------
    1.   REPORT NUMBER
        Insert the L-.PA report number as it appears on tlie cover ot the publication.

    2.   LEAVE BLANK

    3.   RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
        Reserved for use by each report recipient.

    4.   TITLE AND SUBTITLE                                               ....,.,          ,   r     u   ,   r   j
        Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, it used, in smaller
        type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
        number and include subtitle for the specific title.

    5.   REPORT DATE
        Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
        approval, date of preparation, etc.).

    6.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
        Leave blank.

    7.   AUTHOR(S)
        Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
        zation.

    8.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT  NUMBER
        Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.

    9.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
        Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.

    10.  PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
        Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.

    11.  CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
        Insert contract or grant number under which  report was prepared.

    12.  SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
        Include ZIP code.

    13.  TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
        Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.

    14.  SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
        Insert  appropriate code.

    15.  SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES
        Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as:  Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented'at conference of,
        To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.

    16.  ABSTRACT
        Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.  If the report contains a
        significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.

    17.  KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
        (a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the  Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify  the major
        concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.

        (b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators,  etc. Use open-
        ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.

        (c) COSAT1 FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
        jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the  Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
        endeavor, or type of physical object.  The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
        the primary  posting(s).

    18.  DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
        Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example  "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
        the public, with address and price.

    19. &20.  SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
        DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.

    21.  NUMBER OF PAGES
        Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.

    22.  PRICE
        Insert the price set by the National Technical  Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) (Reverse)

-------