Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'.:\ ":) ') c, 5 <br />i.} ~) U '" J <br /> <br />Colorado must move aggressively to develop its Compact share, a major part of which <br /> <br />should be targeted for use on the Front Range. Assuming a 20-year period for planning, permitting <br /> <br />and buildout, work must commence immediately to counter the inevitable impact of even a <br /> <br />moderate drought on Front-Range water supplies. The 15- Y ear Agreement, as constituted, is a <br /> <br />major concession to California by the Upper Basin states, including Colorado. There have been <br /> <br />no similar assurances that the Upper Basin will be able to develop its own resources to meet <br /> <br />equally pressing needs. In fact, the opposite }s true. It is in the interest of California and Nevada <br /> <br />that Colorado be prevented from developing. When placed in the context of federal, state and <br /> <br />international environmental litigation, endangered species planning, "natural flow" regimes for <br /> <br />portions of the Colorado River Basin, minimum flow requirements in the Black Canyon, and <br /> <br />other initiatives, the 15-Year Agreement appears to offer a window within which the plans of the <br /> <br />Upper Basin States, particularly including Colorado, can be cemented over, rather than realized. <br /> <br />In short, without Upper Basin development, California's promise to wean itself from <br /> <br />surplus flows remains hollow. Colorado should not "give away the farm" without receiving <br /> <br />reciprocal commitments. When viewed in the context of the Colorado Supreme Court's recent <br /> <br />decision, Colorado's continued ability to utilize its remaining Compact share must be viewed as <br /> <br />in jeopardy. <br />