WSP12519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

836 NATURALRESOURCES/OUKNAL [Vol. 40 Fall 2000} MANAGING ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION 837 beaches.69 These efforts suggest a growing awareness of the importance of the river's ecological health and the flexibility to address new concerns. Of particular relevance to the magnitude and frequency of flood flows are the "Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs,"70 which invest the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to determine surplus and shortage conditions and guide the allocation of surplus water among users. The U.s. Department of the Interior (001) must prepare a yearly plan for managing reservoirs in the system and must declare whether a surplus or shortage exists. In early 2000, the 001 began drafting a set of criteria to standardize the process by which these surplus determinations are made (see Section IV infra, Surplus and Shortage Criteria). One unresolved aspect of Colorado River water allocation is the extent of Indian reserved water rights in the United States.71 These rights are defined in a series of court decisions that set a basis for quantifying them. The quantity of unadjudicated rights is large, particularly those rights associated with Navajo reservation lands.72 B. Governing Institutions Commission (IBWC), known as ComisiOn lnternacional de L{mites y Aguas (CILA) in Mexico. Created in 1889,73 the IBWC/ClLA is charged with. applying provisions of various boundary and water treaties. The scope of its work includes boundary maintenance, reclamation projects, allocation of transboundarywater resources, construction and maintenance of sewage and sanitation works, and the resolution of treaty and water quality disputes.74 Today, the IBWC/CILA mission is to "provide environmentally C. sensitive, timely, and fiscally responsible boundary and water services 0 along the United States and Mexico border...in an atmosphere of binational c;..s.:t cooperation and in a manner responsive to public concerns."i'S For the most W part, the IBWC/C1LA has limited its focus to problems of water supply and CJ1 quality along the border, leaving issues of environmental protection to the jurisdiction of other Mexican and U.s. agencies. In late 1997, IBWC/C1LA established a binational workgroup to bring together agency managers from both countries to discuss a research agenda.76 At present the workgroup is considering several proposals, but has yet to act." 2.NAFT A Institutions Several international organizations were established with the 1993 signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFr A). The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was created with a broad mandate to promote regional cooperation, prevent environmental disputes, and promote effective enforcement of environmental laws. The CEC facilitates cooperation between the three NAFrA nations (Mexico, Canada, and the United States)-through exchange of information, promotion of scientific research, and access to The number of agencies with jurisdictional authority over the Delta, Colorado River water, and border-related environmental issues, is daunting. Successful, long-term preservation of the Delta will require cooperation between Mexico and the United States, among states and resource agencies and tribes, and the active involvement of nongovernmental organizations, communities, and citizens. A review of the likely players and several long-standing, related resource management issues suggests the involvement of many. 1. International Boundary and Water Commission The only institution with binational authority over surface water resources in the border region is the International Boundary and Water 13. The International Boundary Commission was formed. in 1889, and renamed the IBWC following the Treaty with Mexico Respecting Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Feb. 3, 1944, U.S.-Mex., 59 Stat. 1219. See SmHEN P. MUMME, COMlSSlON ON ENvIRoNMENTAL COOPERATION, THE 1Nsnnm0NAL FRAMEWORK FOR 1'RANsBOUNDARY lNLAND WATER MANAGEMENT IN NORm AMERICA: MExIco, CANADA. mE UN!m) STATES, AND 'niEIR BINATIONAL AGENCIES, at IV.3 (1996). 74. See generally Meyers &c Noble, supra note 55. 75. See International Boundary and Water Commission Web Site (visited Sept. 5, 2000) <http://www.ibwc.state.gov I>. 76. See International Boundary and Water Commission, IBWC-34-97, Meeting of the Commission to Form a Fourth Colorado River Matters Task Force Regarding the Colorado River Data (Oct. 28, 1997) (unpublished document, on file with author). 77. The workgroup met for a short time in 1997, and then was inactive until late 1999 when it was reconvened. At that time the workgroup members from the United States agreed to propose several collaborative research initiatives. Telephone Interview with Sam Spiller, Lower Colorado RiverCooniinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (May 22, 2000); International Boundary and Water Commission, suprll note 76. 69, The 1996 flood helped increase the sandbar volume of 50 percent of the camping beaches measured between Glen Canyon and Hoover dams. The flood bypassed the dam's turbines, and cost approximately $2.5 million in lost hydropower revenues. See DAVID A. HARPMAN, AMEIuCAN GEOPHYSICAL UMON, THE EcONOMIC COST OF mE 1996 CONTROLLED FLOOD (Geophysical Monograph No. 110, 1999). 70, See Arizona v. California, 313 U.S. 546 (1963) (opinion). See IIlso Arizona v. California, 376 U,S. 340 (1964) (deaee). 71. See Allen V. Kneese at Gilbert Bonem, Hypothetical Shocks to Water Allocation Institutions in the Colorlldo River Basin, in NEW COURSES FOR 1HE COLORADO RIvER: MAJOR IssUES FOR 1HE NEXT CENTURY 94, 94-98 (Gary D. Weatherford &c F. Lee Browneds., 1986). 72, See id, at 97.