Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact <br /> <br />Page 9 of 15 <br /> <br />maf. Pollack referred to the Navajo Tribe with its unquantified water rights as a <br />"sleeping giant" and viewed Indian water right claims as possible "compact busters." <br /> <br />Quantification is not the only Indian water right to be settled. Lacking sufficient <br />development to put all their water to use, some tribes view marketing as a means to e: <br />needed income. Questions and controversies thus arise. For example, should tribes be <br />allowed to market water out-of-state? States generally prefer limiting tribes to intra-st <br />water marketing. <br /> <br />The legal status of tribes to market their water remains relatively undefined. Various <br />entities, including individual states, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the tribes <br />themselves, have expressed different opinions. Some officials believe a court case, <br />possibly at the U. S. Supreme Court level, will be needed to settle the controversy. <br /> <br />In the matter of water transfers, tribes generally view themselves as sovereign entitie~ <br />not unlike states. Gary Hansen, attorney for the Colorado River Indian Tribes, said th: <br />under the Winter's Doctrine, tribes have complete control of all beneficial uses ofthei <br />land and water. Tribes therefore have the right to lease their water to interested entitie <br />without the interference of the states in which their reservations are located. As might <br />expected states contest this view. <br /> <br />Water Marketing <br /> <br />Water marketing is another issue to emerge to challenge the compact and the Law of' <br />River. Water marketing would enable water in this case, Colorado River water to be <br />transferred, leased, or sold, from one party to another. Different transactions are <br />possible, between entities within a single state or different states, either states within t <br />same basin or in different basins. (The legal and political acceptability ofthese option <br />vary. ) Many view water marketing as a suitable, even a preferred strategy to help <br />Colorado River states meet increasing and changing water demands. The Santa Fe <br />conference included a panel on water marketing. <br /> <br />Seemingly sensible in theory, such arrangements, however, are very complicated to <br />work out, especially when Colorado River water is at issue. Several factors comp1icat <br />the situation, but according to conference panelists the principle constraint is politics. <br /> <br />Panelist Larry MacDonnell, a Colorado lawyer, called the Colorado River the most <br />political river in the West, a situation that greatly complicates its management. He <br />argued that the compact contributed to this situation in various ways. By dividing riV( <br />water between Upper and Lower Basin states, the compact created competing interest <br />each maneuvering to achieve maximum advantage. Further, whereas in the West <br />individual water users traditionally made allocation decisions for particular beneficial <br />uses, the compact empowered individual states to allocate their apportionment of <br />Colorado River waters. Decisions thus became more complicated and raised the politi <br />stakes. <br /> <br />Tim Quinn, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californi <br />described the perils of water marketing, at least in California where political pitfalls <br />prove to be especially ominous. He said, "The institutions we are living with are not i <br />alignment with the increased acceptability of water marketing ... Any water transfers <br /> <br />http://ag.arizona.edulAZWATERlarroyo/101comm.html <br /> <br />9/1212006 <br />