WSP12519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

832 NATURALRESOURCES/OURNAL [Vol. 40 Fa112000] MANAGING ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION 833 water to sustain it, by establishing dedicated flows to the region.52 These water requirements are currently met through inadvertent and unprotected flood flows and agricultural wastewater. More field research is needed to quantify with certainty the volume and frequency of floods necessary to conserve existing habitat. Significantly, freshwater flow needs of Delta fisheries and the Gulf's near-shore marine species have not been quantified. Because the water that currently sustains the Delta arrives there inadvertently and is unprotected, it is vulnerable to further upstream development as well as to reductions due to drought. Dedication of instream flows in the quantity presently reaching the Delta is necessary to preserve existing habitat. In addition, ecosystem health could be enhanced through changes that do not require additional dedicated flows, such as the timing of water deliveries and improvements in water quality. One short- term improvement would be to provide regular flood releases every few years to inundate riparian and wetland areas, study the vegetative response, and further adapt the timing of these releases to maximize benefits to the Delta ecosystem. If agricultural wastewater can be deliberately managed, many areas of the Delta can be sustained without any additional dedicated flows. Water quality problems in some wetlands supported by agricultural wastewater require mitigation to protect humans who come into contact with the water or eat the local wildlife and fish. The brackish water pumped from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona currently bypasses the Yuma Desalting PlanfJ and is discharged via the MODE canal into the Cienega de Santa Clara, where it sustains some 50,000 acres of wetlands.54 Agricultural wastewater may not be an ideal source of water, yet its benefits may-for the present-outweigh its liabilities, particularly since there are few other potential sources for restoring Delta ecosystems; II. COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT Defining ecological needs is an important component of preserving c:::. \ the Delta, but good science alone will not suffice. The Delta is no longer a c::J system that can be understood solely in terms of biology and hydrology: W human actions, embedded within a complex institutional framework, have ~ significantly altered and modified the Delta. Any program to restore the W Colorado River delta will necessarily engage the array of arrangements and institutions that govern the management of the Colorado River. A. The Law of the River A complex set of legal and administrative agreements, known as the Law of the River,55 governs use of Colorado River water. The Law of the River is not explicitly defined or codified in any single location; it is a dynamic bundle of rules subject to frequent dispute, re-interpretation, revision, and expansion. The Law of the River allocates Colorado River water according to a three-tiered set of priorities. At the top is the United States' international obligation to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of water within a prescribed salinity range to Mexico each year. The second tier allocates water within the upper and lower basins in the United States, and to the states within each basin. The lowest tier allocates water within each state. The Law of the River allocates more water than actually flows down the river in most years. Over the historic long term, the average annual flow of the Colorado is 13.5 million acre-feet.56 Yet when the river was apportioned, first by the Colorado River Compact of 1922,57 and subsequently by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948,58 court 52. The coalition remains informal, but has in the past included representatives from the AmericanHumane Association. American Rivers, Amigos Bravos, Animal Protection Institute, Asociaci6n Eco16gica de Usuarios de los RIos Hardy Y Colorado (AEURHYC), Audubon Council of Utah, Biodiversity Legal Foundation. Border Ecology Project, Basques de las Califomias, AC., Bradshaw Mountain Wildlife Association. Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Connections, Centro de Derecho Ambiental e Integraci6nEc0n6mica del Sur A.C. (DASSUR), Centro de Estudios de los Oceanos y Desiertos (CEDO), Centro RegioIUlI de Estudios AmbientaIes y Socioecon6micas (CREAS), Defenders of Wildlife, Duclcs Unlimited, Earth Island Institute, Environmental Defense, Friends of Pronatura, Forest Guardians, Fund for Animals, Glen Canyon Institute, Great Salt Lake Audubon. The Humane Society of the Ul'Iited States, In Defense of Animals, International Rivers Network, International Sonoran Desert Alliance, IT.ESM~ampus Guaymas, National Audubon Society, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Pacific Institute, Pro Esturos, Pronatura Sonora, Sierra Club, Sonoran Institute, Southwest Rivers, Southwest Toxic Watch. and Wetlands Action Network. These organizations represent over eight million United States and Mexican citizens. 53. See supra note 43. 54. See Edward P. Glenn et aL, Ciinega de Santa Clara: Endangered Wetland in the Colorado River Delta, Sonora, Mexico 32 Nat. Resources J. 817, 817 (1992). 55. A considerable literature exists on the Law of the River. See generally David Getches, Competing Demandsfor the Colortulo River, 56 U.COLO. L. REv. 413 (1985); Charles Meyers, The Colorado River 19 STAN. L. REv. 1 (1966); Charles Meyers &: Richard Noble, Tilt Colorado River: The Treaty with Mexico 19 STAN. L. REv. 367 (1967); NEW CoURSES FOR nul COLORAOO RIvER: MA,JoRIssUES FOR mE NEXT CENTURY (Gary D. Weatherford &: F. Lee Brown eels., 1986); Larry MacDonnell et aI., Tilt LAw oltllt Colortulo River: Coping with Severe Sustained Drought, 31 WATER REsoURCES BULL. 825 (1995). 56. See supra note 34. 57. The full text of the Compact can be found In RAy LYMAN WILBUR &: NORmCU'IT ELY, llmHoovsaDAMOClCUMENTS, H.R. Doc. No. 8Q.717, atA17 (1948). The Compact canbe found on-llne at <http://www.g1encanyonorg/CRC.HTM>. The Compact was ratified by Congress in the Boulder Canyon Project Act 43 U.S.C. S 617(1) (1994). 58. 63 Stat. 31 (1949).