WSP12462 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-, 3 "" .. " ,. I' uU &,0... -pa "dj 15 YEAR AGREEMENT COMMENTARY- WILL COLORADO BE THE BIG LOSER? BY JOHN R. HENDERSON On September 7, 2000 the Union Park Water Authority submitted comments directed at the EIS for the so-called "15- Y ear Agreement" establishing the interim surplus criteria for the operation of the Lower Colorado River Basin. Copies of those comments were distributed at a prior meeting of the committee, and are als~ attached to this paper. Closely related to the 15- Year Agreement is the so-called California 4.4 Plan. The Plan will ostensibly allow California to utilize no more than 4.4 million AF of Colorado River Water in years when surplus conditions do not exist. California regards implementation of the 15-year Agreement as a pre-condition to the implementation of the Plan. The other 6 Basin states view the implementation of the 4.4 plan as a pre-condition for the application of the surplus criteria. Since UPW A's comments were submitted, the Colorado Supreme Court has spoken in the Union Park Case, 98 SA 327, or Board of County Commissioners n. In that case, the Supreme Court adopted the position that the federal government's Aspinall Unit water rights prevented, in essence, any Ulajor new appropriations in the Gunnison for use outside of that basin, and, for most purposes, made the United States the owner of the Gunnison River. On the other hand, the Supreme Court was careful to incorporate into its decision the commitments by the United States and Colorado to utilize the 240,000 acre foot marketable pool at Aspinall to serve Colorado needs, including sale for transbasin use. The existence of the . marketable pool was the counter-argument utilized by the United States and Colorado to the argument that the Aspinall Unit could not be used to foreclose all significant in-state use, in contravention of the purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and the Compacts. The