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)
------- |