Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ~~ 3 -, ". r, <br />;~JU ,Lv.) <br /> <br />Supreme Court obviously felt that the existence of this commitment was important; the decision <br /> <br />otherwise settled upon virtually full federal control of the Gunnison, a major Colorado stream. In <br /> <br />short, any front range diverters from the Upper Gunnison must buy their supplies from the federal <br /> <br />government. <br /> <br />Obviously, the federal government has never before achieved nearly total control of a <br /> <br />major Colorado river. In that sense, the decision is unprecedented. The question you may ask, <br /> <br />though, is "How does this relate to the lS-y~ar agreement?". In the view of this presenter, the <br /> <br />danger of the federal government achieving control through the Union Park litigation must be <br /> <br />viewed in the context of other federal actions, including the commitment being made to serve <br /> <br />municipal needs in Southern California and Nevada at a time when storage for those needs is <br /> <br />bemg dramatically increased there, but not here. <br /> <br />As noted, the IS-year agreement represents a major commitment from the federal <br /> <br />government, with at least the cooperation of the Upper Basin states, to manage the Colorado River <br /> <br />to provide additional surplus water to southern California and Nevada while California "weans" <br /> <br />itself from the surplus water it has been using, but which it is not legally entitled to receive. As <br /> <br />initially conctt,ived, this action was intended to be "neutral" in its treatment of the Upper Basin <br /> <br />states, but not dis-advantageous. Some have hailed the agreement as a victory, in that California's <br /> <br />lack of entitlement to continued surplus deliveries is acknowledged. <br /> <br />The Union Park Water Authority, and perhaps others, take the view that the surplus <br /> <br />declaration criteria are too liberal, and can be expected to result in the deterioration of storage <br /> <br />levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, possibly jeopardizing the usefulness of Lake Powell in <br /> <br />making deliveries at Lee's Ferry (See, Section 3.4.4.4 of the EIS) More importantly, such a <br /> <br />federal commitment to California and its population centers is very different from its perceived <br />