WSP12467 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J02749 ~~...v The great water 'duh' '" 'Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has introduced an innovative concept into the encrusted body of water law that governs the overused and overlitigated Colorado River. This innovation is called com- o mon sense. If some states have more water than they need and some states need more water than they have, why don't the former sell water to the lat- ter? This idea is so obvious it almost elicits a "dub," the expression the younger generation employs to un- derscore a particularly obvious solution. Babbitt announced a federal rule last Thursday that would allow just such interstate sales of water from the river. It may come as a surprise to many citizens to know that such sales were ever forbidden. Water rights are, after all, a property right, and property rights can generally be transferred between willing buyers and sellers. If you own a car, you are legally entitled to sell that car to a buyer from Nevada. But if you own the right to use water from the Colorado River in Colorado, you are currently only allowed to sell that water right to a buyer who will also use it within this state. You cannot sell your water rights to a buyer who wants to use that wa- ter in Nevada because the 1922 Colo- rado River Compact forbids such in- terstate sales of water unless all the signatory states agree to permit it. The compact apportions water among the states fed by the river ac- cording to an arcane formula. Given the explosive growth in California and Nevada in the 75 years since the o compact was signed, it isn't surpris- ing that those thirsty states now feel particularly Shortchanged by that outdated formula. Colorado, in contrast, has rights to more water than it has places to use or store that water. The result is that about 800,000 to 1.2 million acre-feet of water that Colorado has the legal right to use flows out of this state every year, where it can be used by lower basin states without compen- sation to Colorado. That idea of one state selling a re- source it has in abundance to users in another state that need it works well for Kansas, which grows more wheat than it can consume locally and hap- pily sells some of its surplus to New York. But such market solutions have never been permitted in western wa- ter law because of the aforemention- ed restriction in the compact. States that would lose water in such trades, such as Colorado, are reluctant to sell the rights to even the water they don't use now because they might nee~ that water some day. Paradoxically, thirsty states like California and Nevada have also been reluctant to approve purchases from upper-basin states - because they are reluctant to begin paying money for surplus water that they're already getting free. Times are changing, however. Ne- vada and California are beginning to understand that they can't build long-term plans on the notion of free- loading on Colorado water forever, because they would lose that water if Colorado ever did develop the means to store it. Meanwhile, pressure from envi- ronmentalists and recreational users of the river has made it virtually im- possible to build new reservoirs in Colorado. In this light, Babbitt's proposal makes a lot of sense. For now, it only applies to the lower-basin states: Ar- izona, Nevada and California. But it could be extended to allow upper-ba- sin states, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, to sell water to downstream neighbors for a profit. We urge Babbitt to move toward the broadest possible interstate mar- ket in water rights with all deliber- ate speed. Both our environment and our economy can benefit if such "win- win" marketplace solutions can be floated down the Colorado River.