WSP10207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, The Honorable Gale Norton Page3 of? express covenant it made in 1929 to limit its use of the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre-feet. No alternative is pennitted under the Decree of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California. Absent enforcement of the limits established in the Law ofthe River, the allocation of the right to consume water among the states would be meaningless. Enforcing the seven-state agreement preserves the important principle that agreements will be honored. These commitments were carefully negotiated by all seven Basin states and the Interior Department. California helped craft the agreement. If this agreement is not enforced, other water negotiations and agreements will be at risk. Another decade-long round of U.S. Supreme Court litigation on the Colorado River is a very real danger. If the California entities choose not to take the steps necessary for the gradual, voluntary reductions contemplated under the seven-state agreement, California will lose access to extra water available under the Interim Surplus Guidelines. In such an event, California will be forced to live within its 4.4 million acre-feet apportionment from the Colorado River in 2003. While we understand the desire of California entities to obtain certainty with respect to concerns about what the future may bring, the Law of the River does not provide any exception to the requirement that California live within its legal entitlement of water from the Colorado River. My hope is that the California entities can still sign the QSA before the December 31 st deadline. I am directing the Bureau of Reclamation - under the guidance and direction of Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley--to work with the California entities to achieve that goal. I am also directing my staff to initiate consultation with representatives of California and the other Basin States on the appropriate mechanism for implementing the 4.4 million acre-foot limitation on January I st. While we have not yet finalized the details, it is fair to say that there will be an actual reduction in diversions through the Colorado River Aqueduct in January 2003. In the event that the QSA is not signed by the deadline, it is possible for California to have the Guidelines reinstated. Reinstatement can occur ifthe QSA is signed, or if California takes such actions as are required by the Department. For those who rest hope on the Aall required actions@ option in the Guidelines, you should be aware that the actions that will be required must be real and pennanent. It makes no sense to respond to a failure to meet the first deadline in the Seven States agreement by lessening the requirements for enhanced access to surplus water. To the contrary, the bar will be raised. The Department will also be carefully considering all of these issues in the course of acting on the pending water orders for 2003. In this context, the Department may take other steps to ensure that all requirements of the Decree of the United States Supreme Court are met. Finally, as noted in our Federal Register notice last summer, we are aware of the impact of a suspension of the enhanced surplus on Nevada. We will continue our discussions with Nevada and the other basin states to address this issue. We understand the equity issues, and are wrestling with the legal issues associated with separating Nevada=s future from the consequences of California=s actions. The California 4.4 plan is not the only issue affecting the Colorado River. Our treaty obligations with Mexico, the Endangered Species Act, and Indian Water settlements are also important. We share the Colorado River with the Republic of Mexico. We also share the Rio Grande with Mexico, and the 1944 Treaty defines each nation=s rights to water from these rivers. http://www.doi.gov/news/nortonl.html 12/16/2003