WSP08629 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FROM: RES. RIGHTS To:CWCB lJJ 2 ,f!:3 AUG 12. 1994 1:10PM ~479 P.05 depends on the extent and severity of future droughts. Unre- solved compact interpretation questions concerning delivery obli- gations to Mexico also affect water availability. Finally, the amount of consumptive uses within Colorado are in the process of being quantified more accurately, as part of the Colorado River Decision Support System process. Until that process is complete, statements about the amount of Colorado's apportionment that is "unused" are speculative. Large amounts of water leaving the state are not necessarily an indication of unused apportionment, as a substantial quantity of the water originating within Colora- do is committed to other states by compact. 3. Lower Colorado River Basin States are not out to break lhe....folorado..River Co!!,pac~s. The 1922 Colorado River Compact, the 1948 Upper Colorado R~ver Basin Compact, and the other compo- nents of the "Law of the River" are Colorado's first and best de- fense against water raids by downstream states. Without the com- pacts, the faster-developing Lower Basin, including southern Cal- ifornia and Las Vegas, would have already established rights to most of the reliable supply of the Colorado River. Instead, the compacts apportion waler "in 'per~etuityU for Colorado's future development. In recent congresslonal hearings, all the Lower Basin states as well as the Department of the Interior agreed that Lower Basin problems can and should be resolved within the compacts. Further, congressional abrogation of an interstate compact is unprecedented and would be opposed not just by Colora- do, but by every state that relies on such compacts -- e.g. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and many others. 4. More reservoirs will not necessarily aid Colorado in protecting- or using -'its compact apportionment. The storage uni Ls of the Colorado River Storage Project (Powell, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Aspinall) provide, as they were intended to, approxi- mately 31 MAP of carryover storage to even out the erratic flows of the Colorado and allow the Upper Basin to meet its delivery obligations without curtailment of uses. Further, Article III (e) of the 1922 Compact specifically provides that the Upper Basin shall not withhold water that cannot reasonably be applied to do- mestic and agricultural uses. Thus, simply storing water and/or using it for hydroelectric purposes will not give Colorado any more protection under the compact. 5. Recovery of endangered fish species is necessar~ to Erotect both existing and future water uses within Colora o. The federal Endangered Species Act is an extraordinarily powerful law, which threatens to shut down not just future but existing water developments on the Colorado, because of possible detrimen- tal effects on four endangered fish species. Recognizing this, -2-