Utah Governor stops Nevada water sharing agreement

This month, Utah Governor Gary Herbert said he would not sign an agreement that would divvy water under the shared border between Utah and Nevada. This water had been eyed by the thirsty metropolis of Las Vegas a few hours south. The pact was drawn up four years ago in response to a 2004 Congressional order that required the states to reach an agreement before any transfers of water would be permitted in the Snake Valley. The agreement was controversial because of a proposed pipeline enabled by the pact that would send Snake Valley water to Las Vegas. The pipeline spurred protests from farmers, environmentalists, tribes, and ranchers in Utah and parts of Nevada.

It was not clear whether Gov. Herbert would support the agreement, and he shocked both supporters and critics of the project when he announced his decision. He told the Deseret News, "At the end of the day, when it comes down to those people who have the most to lose — it's their water, their lifestyle, their livelihood — I can't in good conscience sign the agreement. It's that simple."

In Utah, the reaction has been positive. The majority of local citizens and officials at the county level in Millard and Juab counties did not support the water sharing agreement.

The director of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources said that they are "evaluating all of [their] options in light of Gov. Herbert's decision." A lawsuit could be forthcoming.

Clean Water Act turns 40

Today marks the official 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act becoming law. The milestone has spurred a number of editorial content across the Internet - from Kristen Bell to the National Geographic. On this blog, I've already highlighted the law, its effect on pollution mitigation, and where the law currently falls short meeting our water management needs today here. Managers and commenters across the web have raised other issues that should be addressed in order to strengthen the CWA and water policy in the United States:

- Clarify the scope of the act to include small tributaries and waters that have ecological impacts on the waters of the United States (National Geographic)

- Focus on policy mechanisms to address non-point source pollution like fertilizer run-off and urban stormwater (LA Times)

- Retrofit urban and rural water infrastructure to meet current and future needs more efficiently (LA Times), especially sewage treatment plants (NY Times)

The benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act are obvious. The Chattanoogan lists some of the statistics:

• The number of Americans receiving clean drinking water has increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 92 percent in 2007;
• More than 2,000 water bodies identified as impaired in 2002 now meet water quality standards;
• 60 percent more Americans were served by publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities from 1968 to 2008.

The act was passed by a bi-partisan Congress. In today's political context, it's difficult to imagine a bi-partisan effort that would strengthen the CWA. But that's exactly what needs to happen in order for our country to face the coming water-related crises.

Happy Birthday, Clean Water Act!

This week 40 years ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, overriding President Nixon's veto, and setting in motion new regulations that would dramatically improve the quality of the waters of the United States.

Over the last decade, however, the power of the Clean Water Act has been gently chipped away by loopholes for small, seasonal waterways and wetlands. In addition, the CWA does not have a strong regulatory mechanism that addresses non-point source pollution, which accounts for the majority of pollution inputs to our waterways today.

As we celebrate this important environmental milestone, it would be a good time to re-evaluate our policy strategies for ensuring clean waterways in the future.

Check back here next week for a review of Pacific Institute's newest release, A Twenty-First Century Water Policy, which provides a framework for a new kind of federal water policy designed for today's sociopolitical and economic realities.

Prior appropriation doctrine the topic of New Mexico water lawsuit

A group of farmers and ranchers in New Mexico is filing a lawsuit against the Middle Rio Grande Water Conservancy District. The lawsuit claims that the Conservancy District illegally limited water deliveries for all users despite the prior appropriation doctrine, which states that senior water rights holders are entitled to their full allotment before Junior water rights holders, even in times of water shortage and drought.

Many water policy experts across United States have predicted that conflict over water in the West will intensify over the coming decades as the population grows, water uses shift, and uncertainty about climate change continues to illuminate problems in our water management strategies.

Source: http://m.westernfarmpress.com/government/new-mexico-s-fight-senior-water-rights-intensifies

California passes water conservation bill

A bill just passed in California that would focus on water conservation measures for businesses, especially car washes. The law will require at least 60% of water used at car washes to be recycled water. Technology that recycles water on-site is easy to install, and already used at many California car washes. The technology may actually lower the water bill for these businesses.

Credit: Pat's Express Carwash

This sensible bill means that less treated, drinkable water will be used to spray the dirt and bugs off of cars, instead using recycled water that has been filtered to remove detergents and dirt.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto is the author of the bill.






Source: eNewsChannels

Colorado Hydropower and Jobs Bill moves through Senate Committee

A bill that would simplify the process for new small-scale hydropower projects has moved to the Senate, passing the Senate Energy and Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power hearing. The congressional bill (H.R. 2842) sponsored by Colorado Congressman Scott Tipton, passed in March.

Hydropower is heralded by supporters as a reliable, cheap source of renewable, non-carbon emitting source of energy. The bill would allow for new development at existing facilities to increase power generation and provide more jobs. Calling it "low-hanging fruit," Congressman Tipton believes that simplifying the regulatory process will spur smaller hydropower projects that could provide as much power as Glen Canyon Dam.

Although hydropower is emission-free, it does not come without serious ecosystem impacts, altering volume, temperature, and seasonal flow regimes.

Source: Power Engineering Magazine

EPA Policy Change to clarify definition of US Waters

The Clean Water Act protects the quality of waters of the U.S., traditionally defined as "Navigable" waters and waters that are "a significant nexus...to navigable waters." The ambiguity of these distinctions has been the focus of several state court cases, as well as one recent Supreme Court Case (Rapanos Vs. United States, 2006).

This year, the EPA proposed a revision to the Clean Water Act that would clarify the definition of "Waters of the United States" in order to allow the EPA to protect water quality standards on smaller waters that are hydraulically linked to navigable waters.

Interpretation of Rapanos V. United States has resulted in some waters being removed from CWA protection. This policy change would address that gap, and any waters linked through ground or surface water connections would fall under the CWA.

Some groups, including farmers and managers, are concerned that "other waters" would include highway ditches, culverts, or farm ponds, and that addressing water quality for those waterways would prove costly. However, the EPA has stated, "The guidance will not extend federal protection to any waters not historically protected under the Clean Water Act and will be fully consistent with the law, including decisions of the Supreme Court. The guidance will also maintain all of the existing exemptions for agricultural discharges and waters, and also identify specific types of water bodies to which it does not apply – areas like artificial lakes and ponds, and many types of drainage and irrigation ditches."

Sources: Watertown Daily Times, EPA

Arizona State Trust Lands not covered under Reserved Water Rights Doctrine

Courts in Arizona ruled that the Reserved Water Rights doctrine, which states that federal and tribal lands reserve the right to use water necessary for the stipulated functions for those lands, does not apply to state trust lands in Arizona. Federal lands were granted to the state in Arizona in 1910 for government buildings, universities, prisons, and other uses. Arizona argued that since the U.S. congress granted those lands for specific purposes, they served a federal purpose and could therefore apply for federal reserved water rights, but the court disagreed.

About 6.5 million of Arizona's over 9 million acres of state trust land are in the Little Colorado and Gila River basins.

Source: Courthouse News Service