Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, ~-i ") Y7 \( <br />'..i :...) U t....~ ~ \.] <br /> <br />. Consumption of Colorado River water in California has for the last several years <br />exceeded California's basic apportionment of 4.4 maf per year. However, this <br />has not yet been a problem, since total beneficial consumptive uses of water from <br />the mainstem Colorado River in the Lower Division States have not exceeded the <br />total amount of consumptive use allowable in "Normal" years of 7.5 maf. Thus, <br />California users have been able to use the apportioned but unused water of <br />Arizona and Nevada. As total consumptive uses in the Lower Division States <br />exceed 7.5 maf in "Normal" years, California water uses will have to be reduced <br />to 4.4 maf. The burden of that reduction falls directly on the Metropolitan Water <br />District of Southern California, which continues to have a dependence on <br />Colorado River water in excess of California's basic apportionment. In the <br />context of the current talks among the States and Tribes, California has achieved <br />significant progress in reducing that dependence, through the implementation of <br />conservation measures, the development of a land-fallowing program, and the <br />negotiation of a groundwater storage agreement with the Central Arizona Water <br />Conservancy District. California must continue those efforts to firm up MWD's <br />water supply within California's basic apportionment. In addition, California has <br />asked the Basin States and the Bureau of Reclamation to develop more firm <br />criteria for the declaration of surplus, normal, and shortage conditions in the <br />Lower Basin and to operate the Colorado river system more efficiently for water <br />use in the Lower Basin. These proposed operations have a direct impact on <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />These problems are interrelated. Each one of these issues cannot be solved in isolation <br />without affecting the other issues. Even if an affected entity sought to resolve one of these <br />issues independent of the others, it is doubtful that the federal government would allow that to <br />happen. In a recent speech in Boulder, Colorado, Assistant Secretary Rieke said: <br /> <br />It is time to figuratively melt those chains [binding the Law of the River] and to <br />put on the table everyone's creative ideas for revamping the rules for managing <br />the Colorado River. It is time for every interest - states, water users <br />(agricultural and non-agricultural, Indian and non-Indian, Upper and Lower <br />Basin), energy users, environmentalists, and the federal government - to come <br />forward with new schemes. It is time for all of us to move out of the traditional, <br />no-risk-for-me, only-risk-for-the-other-guy position and figure out how to make <br />a dramatically over-appropriated, badly damaged river system faced with new <br />demands work better. <br /> <br />The process is already under way, but it is time to accelerate it. Just how we do <br />that remains to be seen. But the Secretary is a committed advocate for <br />comprehensive change, not piecemeal solutions that focus on just one aspect of <br />the problem, such as banking water in Lake Mead or in Arizona's aquifers, or <br />straightening out the Arizona Project financial dilemma. <br /> <br />6 <br />