Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001580 <br /> <br />936 <br /> <br />ECOLOGY lAW QUARTERLY <br /> <br />[Vol. 28:903 <br /> <br />efficient, at least some Colorado River water will eventually need <br />to be dedicated to restoration purposes. However, every drop of <br />water spent on the Sea will inevitably take water away from <br />existing users - or it will take it from the Delta. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />E. The Inevitable Future: Moving Water fromFanns to Cities <br /> <br />The combined pressures of population growth, increasing <br />Upper Basin use, increasing tribal use, and salinity will have the <br />unavoidable long-term consequence of shifting the water of the <br />Colorado from farms to cities.215 Municipal and industrial uses <br />produce greater economic beIl;eflt per unit of water,216 and these <br />types of users are ultimately willing. to pay more Ior water than <br />farmers.217 In the Lower Basin, irrigated agriculture (much of it <br />growing cattle feed) accounts for around 85% of all water use,218 <br />but produces comparatively low economic returns. In 1994, <br />cotton and alfalfa irrigation in Arizona consumed nearly 2.2 maf <br />of water - equivalent to 75% of Arizona's Colorado River <br />entitlement219 - despite the fact that these crops produced the <br />lowest returns of any in the region (alfalfa returned only $95 per <br />acre-foot of water used, cotton only $192 per acre-foot).22o By <br />contrast, a typical Tucson consumer paid nearly $700 per acre- <br />foot for residential water. 221 <br />The juxtaposition of these low agricultural returns with the <br />premium paid for municipal water reflects the substantial <br />subsidization of agriculture through irrigation projects. dams, <br />and other measures.222 This situation cannot persist forever. The <br />Lower Colorado's powerful agricultural interests traditionally <br />have relied on the protections of the Law of the River to maintain <br />their dominance in the water wars; however, recent <br />developments on the Lower Colorado suggest that the balance of <br /> <br />215. See William H. Swan, New Developments on the Colorado River, in WATER <br />LAW: TRENDS. POUCIES, AND PRACTICE 341-342 (Kathleen M. Carr & James D. <br />Crammond eds., 1995). <br />216. See id. <br />217. See NATIONAL REsEARCH COUNCIL, supra note 70, at 25-26. See discussion <br />infra Part lV(discussing how the recent developments on the Lower Colorado <br />represent an acceleration of this trend). <br />218. See FRADKIN. supra note 9, at 32. <br />219. See MORRISONETAL., supranote 137, at 37. <br />220. See id. at 39. Compare the retums for alfalfa and cotton to $3,316/af for <br />lettuce, $1,752/affor cantaloupe, and $1820/affor cauliflower. Id <br />221. Personal Communication with Christopher Avery, Esq., Attorney for Tucson <br />Water, (Oct. 15, 1999). <br />222. See NATIONAL REsEARCH COUNCIL, supra note 70, at 25-26. <br />