Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000826 <br /> <br />Let me repeat what I said a moment ago - The fact that there is not enough water to meet <br />all demands in a drought is not a failure ofthe Law of the River. I would submit to you that <br />virtually all of the complaints about the Law of the River are not really about whether the <br />Compact and other aspects of the Law of the River work, but are instead complaints that it is <br />working, and the person does not like the result. While some find the role of states an <br />impediment to the existence of an enlightened policy for the Colorado River, states are actually <br />mentioned in the United States Constitution. Others fmd fault with the use of a compact to <br />allocate water, but that too is a result of the Constitution. Still others dislike the identification of <br />specific allocations of water for specified purposes in the Compact and elsewhere in the Law of <br />the River. That darned Congress, what was it thinking when it passed the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act? Likewise, others would ignore the injunction of the Supreme Court that requires <br />that the Secretary, in her role as water master, only deliver water in accordance with the Law of <br />the River. You get my point, I trust. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it <br />does take a certain degree of arrogance to cavalerly dismiss resource allocation decisions made <br />over decades under our representative form of government. <br /> <br />Academic debates about the fairness or wisdom or validity of the Law of the River are <br />also a waste of time. The reality is that we are in a drought and must deal with it with the tools <br />thatare in place. At a fundamental level, and regardless of whether or not the drought continues, <br />the most important policy issue in the Colorado River basin is how to provide for the shift of <br />water from agricultural to urban and environmental uses without destroying the rural <br />communities that are a critical part or-the soul of the West. <br /> <br />The answer, we believe, is in the use of market mechanisms that fit within the Law of the <br />River. As the IID to San Diego transfer proved, the Law of the River is not a barrier to the <br />transfer of water between agricultural and urban areas in the Lower Basin. Moreover, the fact <br />that there is approximately 5 million acre-feet of water in Lower Basin agriculture provides an <br />opportunity to structure a market that avoids the creation of sacrifice zones in rural areas. <br /> <br />Last October, Secretary Norton added a historic new chapter to the Law ofthe River - the <br />Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement of 2003. This Agreement allows California to honor <br />the solemn promise it made in 1929 to live within an annual basic allocation of 4.4 million acre- <br />feet. The single most important aspect of this Ten-Page agreement is that both the Imperial <br />Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District voluntarily adopted a "quantification" <br />of their Colorado River allocations. This long-term agreement - for up to 75 years - achieves a <br />quantification of these districts and settles disputes dating back nearly 75 years to the early <br />1930s. <br /> <br />With this quantification in place, orderly, market-based transfers of Colorado River <br />water between California's agricultural users and its growing population on the coastal plain are <br />possible. <br /> <br />Prepared Remarks - Keynote Address <br />Law of the Colorado River <br /> <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />