Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, . <br /> <br />-, Q !";7fl <br />dUO," .J <br /> <br />It seems apparent that any solution to anyone of these interrelated problems will affect <br />all interests on the River. <br /> <br />The Challenges Facing Colorado <br /> <br />Is Colorado immune? Can Colorado simply sit back and advocate Lower Basin solutions <br />that do not affect our interests? Hardly. Such a position only invites others to solve their <br />problems at our expense. Moreover, the "no action" position does nothing to move forward <br />Colorado's agenda. <br /> <br />Colorado's general position with respect to issues on the Colorado River has been, and <br />will continue to be, that the use and allocation problems in the Lower Basin can and should be <br />resolved among the Lower Basin States. Moreover, Colorado has asserted that MWD can be <br />assured of a secure water supply, additional long-term water can be provided to Southern <br />Nevada, and financial relief can be secured for Arizona water users - all within the basic <br />framework of the Law of the River. Colorado has taken this position in order to protect our <br />Compact entitlement and future development options within Colorado. <br /> <br />However, these cannot be viewed as only Lower Basin problems. The Upper Basin <br />States must be ready and willing to facilitate and accommodate agreements among the Lower <br />Basin States through greater operational flexibility and security in the way water is run through <br />the Colorado River system reservoirs. Such operational flexibility can inure to the benefit of <br />the Upper Basin States but also creates risks in that system reservoirs may fluctuate more <br />widely. It is also important to recognize that such operational. flexibility can be achieved without <br />a wholesale rewrite of the Law of the River. As Assistant Secretary Rieke stated in a recent <br />interview in Western Water: <br /> <br />We will need some very creative lawyering so we can leave the <br />[Colorado River] Compact intact. Any suggestion of opening up <br />the Compact threatens too many interests. We are beginning to <br />see some creative thinking in the discussions among the Colorado <br />River Basin States - some discussion of loosening the chains <br />around running the river and creating some flexibility that's in the <br />interests of all the basin states. <br /> <br />The Upper Basin States should be willing to discuss the operational changes necessary <br />to accommodate agreements in the Lower Basin, if there is sufficient incentive to do so. That <br />incentive is found if one examines the challenges to the development and use of water in the <br />Upper Basin States, and the options with the most realistic chances of meeting those challenges <br />in light of new realities of change in water policy in the West. The challenges to water use and <br />development in Colorado include the following: <br /> <br />7 <br />