WSP09378 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CRWUA " "~ ~~ , t;.... ~~) ~ - -~ blocked in the House of to-three decision. The court How much should they should be devoted to ! -'ii Representatives. supported Arizona's posi- have? How should it be meeting expectations? At . " Arizona again sought tion regarding water from used? Should there be pro- what times? Where? " ~- ~ recourse from the U.S. the Gila, and California was visions for transfers, leasing, How? At what cost? Who Supreme Court in 1952, limited to 4.4 million acre- selling? Endangered species benefits? And for what and eleven more years feet of water a year on a - there's an issue of cou- trade-offs? '~ would be needed to sort dependable basis. However, cern to all. How far should There are those who , out what became the the court did agree with it go? At what cost or trade- crusade for amendments longest and most compli- California's interpretation offs? Has it already gone to the 1922 Colorado cated water case in federal of the disputed "surplus" too far? The factors are River Compact. Though ;; court history. water, giving it rights to half many and the opinions fierce controversy over the ' _:~ At the core of the dispute of any such surplus. wide-ranging. The uses to Colorado long has been were differing interpreta- Arizona had won the which the water is purls the rule, there is little sup- tions by the two states over water war, but California becoming a topic of con- port in the Seven basin parts of the 1922 Colorado still had one trump card left cern along the length of the states for opening up the , River Compact and the to play - its Congressional river. Should agricultural compact. Rather, innova- 1929 Boulder Canyon, support for the CAP,. In water be less subsidized? tive proposals for agree' Project Act - the flow of return for that support, Should there be new ments abound. ConCepts the Gila River and the so- Arizona agreed to guaran- options for satisfying the under discussion include, , " f called "surplus water." tee California's 4.4 million needs of rapidly growing among others, banking Of the 7.5 million acre- acre-feet a year as a priority urban areas? Whatare the water in Lake Mead for feet allocated to the lower over the CAP entitlement. true costs of water? Should use as needed; a snowpack " basin, California had With California's back- marketing and transfer augmentation project in , agreed its share was 4.4 mil- , ing, the Central Arizona negotiations be put on fast the upper basin to increase ' c)i lion when it adopted a limi- Project was authorized by track? Drought manage- runoff; interstate transfers " tation act in 1929. Congress in 1968. After ment is another area where or marketing of water, per- i , Additionally, California nearly 50 turbulent years, , decisions have to be made. haps utilizing an interstate , contended the extra 1 mil- calm was restored on the Is there sufficient water in water bank to provide a lion acre-feet granted to the lower Colorado. the reservoir system to source of water for states lower basin was surplus The following years meet current needs of more in need during critical, water and, therefore, it had brought a series of actions: than 7.5 million acre-feet in emergency or other unusu- rights to half. As for the (1) in 1970 to provide for the lower basin? And then al water condiiions..Jhe Gila, California contended the storage of waterin there's water quality- , possibilities truly are just the water Arizona used CRSP reservoirs and set a salinity control has long beginning to break through from this Colorado River priority for release of water been an ongoing problem. the surface. Of course, for tributary - some 2 million from Lake Powell; (2) in What must be done to proposals to become,more acre-feet - should be sub- 19.72 to give the U.S. EP A reduce the salt load flowing than proposals, there are tracted from Arizona's allo- authority to control water into the Colorado River ' ' technical concerns to be cation. Arizona, meall- quality of the nation's " system? Will selenium con- , worked out,legal'and polito ' while, asserted the rivers; (3) in 1973 to require centration in river water ical hurdles to jump, and "surplus"'water,had been actions that would reduce pose a threat in the future? ' interests to'beprotec;ted. apportioned and should not the salinity of water deliv- And what about the river's But in this era of limited be declared surplus. ered to Mexico; and ( 4) in mother-and-apple-pie capa- water supplies in the'West, The complex case went 1974 to authorize desalting bility - clean, non-pollut- one thing about which all through four years of pre- and salinity control projects ing generation of hydro- seven states agree is that trial activity; another two to improve Colorado River electric power? What could discussions are where solu- years were consumed by water quality. be better than that? tions begin. testimony from more than Unfortunately, serious ~ 100 witnesses. It wasn't And what ahont tomorrow? issues surround this source until December of 1960 The challenges of the '90s of energy as well. that the special master for users of Colorado River Repayment, environmental appointed to hear the case water are many and varied. impacts from operations, submitted his final report to What about Native replacement power from the high court. American water rights? other sources - none of Finally, on June 3, 1963, these issues has easy the Supreme Court ruled in answers. And even recre- favor of Arizona in a five- ation on the river poses problems. How much water ,\'; \~ -', ~ -""'''''-''.' ,~_,_~~",;,;,,~'~:.,",~ ,;:,k~