|
<br />&>"'2
<br />
<br />NATURALRESOURCES/OURNAL
<br />
<br />[Vol. 40
<br />
<br />Fall 2000]
<br />
<br />MANAGING ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION
<br />
<br />853
<br />
<br />conservation purposes.l50 The General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and
<br />Environmental ProtectionlS1 authorizes Mexico's biosphere reserves to
<br />protect areas of great biological diversity and unique ecological
<br />characteristics.152 To the extent that the ecological value of the Biosphere
<br />Reserve in the Delta is found in its wetlands, this law might serve as a tool
<br />to secure or protect adequate flows.
<br />
<br />San Diego and irrigators in the Imperial Irrigation District to implement
<br />water conservation measures.l56
<br />
<br />2. Surplus and Shortage Criteria
<br />
<br />The Secretary of the U.s. Department of Interior has discretion to
<br />declare a surplus on the Colorado River, and has the subsequent
<br />responsibility to allocate surplus water among the states. IS? The Colorado
<br />River Compact1S8 protects the Lower Basin states from shortage by requiring
<br />the Upper Basin states not to deplete flows to the Lower Basin based on an
<br />aggregate flow over a period of 10 consecutive years.l59 In compliance with
<br />the Compact, BORmanagers keep Lake Mead, the reservoir behind Hoover
<br />Dam, near capacity, and in wet years must spill water to create space for
<br />spring floods-the releases that create flood flows to the Delta. Viewing
<br />these releases as "wasted" water, the Lower Basin states have proposed
<br />various off-stream storage opportunities to capture it.l60 Surplus
<br />declarations are presently made on an annual basis, but the Deparbnent of
<br />Interior, in early 2000, solicited comments on a IS-year plan that would
<br />allocate surplus based on a list of criteria.161 The Department of Interior's
<br />initial surplus proposal will allow Lower Basin states to divert additional
<br />Colorado River water in years when Lake Mead exceeds prescribed
<br />elevations, thereby reducing the frequency and magnitude of flows to the
<br />Delta. A coalition of organizations has proposed interim criteria reflecting
<br />a tiered strategy that guarantees deliveries to satisfy the baseline needs of
<br />the Delta before any surplus flows for municipal and industrial uses,
<br />agriculture, or off-stream storage (including groundwater banking) could
<br />be allocated in the United States or Mexico.l62 Under these criteria, flood
<br />flows for the Delta would be allocated before agricultural users could claim
<br />
<br />c:;
<br />Co;:.>
<br />w
<br />W
<br />I ;;.
<br />W
<br />
<br />C. Related Issues and Opportunities
<br />
<br />Given the many competing demands for water in the Colorado
<br />River basin, prospects for improving water inanagement to benefit the Delta
<br />may be found in conjunction with other, related efforts. Several resource
<br />management issues related to management of the Colorado River or other
<br />water resources on the border may offer strategic opportunj,ties for
<br />improving management of the Delta.
<br />
<br />1. Colorado River Entitlements and the California Colorado River Water Use Plan
<br />
<br />Collectively, states in the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico,
<br />Utah, and Wyoming) do not presently use their full allobnent of water, and
<br />(with the exception of New Mexico) are unlikely to develop their entire
<br />Colorado River water apportiomnents in the foreseeable future.1S3 California
<br />currently uses just over 5.1 million acre-feet a year, including surplus water
<br />and a diminishing quantity of unused Lower Basin entitlements.lS4 In an
<br />ongoing planning process for the California Plan, California has committed
<br />to reduce its use of Colorado River water by 2015.155 One component of the
<br />California Plan is an agreement in 1999 between municipal water users in
<br />
<br />ISO, Ley de Aguas Nacionales, suRegJamento y Ley Federal del Mar (1992, amended 1994).
<br />151. The Ley General del Equilibrio Ecol6gico y Protecci6n al Ambiente can be accessed
<br />at <http://www.ine.gob.mx/uaj/lgeepa/index.html>.
<br />152. See V ALD5-CASILLAS ET AL., supra note 12, at 56.
<br />153. Development of Upper Basin water will be regulated under the Endangered Species
<br />Act. The most optimistic projections for development in the Upper Basin forecast full
<br />development for New Mexico by 2030, and Colorado and Wyoming in some year beyond the
<br />6o-year projection ti.meframe. Utah is not projected to develop its entire apportionment under
<br />these projections. See Memorandum from Wayne E. Cook, Executive Director, Upper Colorado
<br />River Commission. to Interested Agencies/Parties (Dec. 19, 1999) (on file with author).
<br />154. Under the Supreme Court decree inArizona v. Califomia, 376 U.S, 340 (1964), California
<br />has the right to use 4.4 million acre-feet in normal years, plus the W\used portions of ArIzona
<br />and Nevada. In years when the Secretary of the Interiordec1ares a surplus condition, California
<br />is entitled to use an additionalSOO,ooo acre-feet (SO% of a one-million acre-foot surplus), plus
<br />the W\used surplus entitlement of Arizona and Nevada.
<br />155. The Draft California Colorado River Water Use Plan may be accessed at
<br /><http://crb.water.ca.gov /reporls.htm>. A final plan is expected in early 2001.
<br />
<br />156. See Key Termsfin' Qwmtijialtion Sett1nnmtarnong the StateofCalifomia,lmperild Irrigation
<br />Distrltt, CDtu:hella Valley Water District, and Metropolitan Water District (last modified Oct. 15,
<br />1999) <http://www.cvwd.org/wateriss/Key_Terms.htm> [hereinafter Key Terms for
<br />Quanf!lication].
<br />157. The Supreme Court established DOl's authority to declare surplus in Arizona v.
<br />California, 316 U.S. 340 (1964).
<br />158. See supra note 51.
<br />159. See id. at art. m(d).
<br />160. See PON1tUS supra note 1, at 32-
<br />161. See Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement and public
<br />hearin8& for the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: INT-DESQO..25,
<br />65 Fed. Reg. 42,028, 42,029 (2000).
<br />162. See Letter from Mindy Schlimgen-WilsOll, Associate Director, Southwest Regional
<br />Office, American Rivers et aL, to David Hayes, Ac:ting Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
<br />Interior, & Robert Johnson. Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region Office, U.s. Bureau of
<br />Reclamation (discussing Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria) (Feb. 15, 2000) available at
<br /><http://www.paclnst.org/coriver.html>.
<br />
|