Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact Page 10 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />must run a gauntlet at the local, regional, state levels. We have a long road to travel <br />before we have reform." <br /> <br />A Californian may well be disenchanted with the present water marketing arrangemeJ <br />since the state now is embroiled in an involved and embittered intrastate effort to mar <br />water. The parties in the transfer are the Imperial Irrigation District, the Metropolitan <br />Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. The proposed deal is a <br />complicated, highly contested proposition; at stake are vast amounts of money and thl <br />control of Colorado River water. The situation has attracted national attention, most <br />recently in a front-page story in the July 11 Wall Street Journal. The article is <br />subheaded: "Why Markets Seem Inevitable." <br /> <br />Meanwhile the federal government supports the transfer and marketing of Colorado <br />River water. The Wall Street Journal article noted above quotes Interior Secretary Bn <br />Babbitt as saying, "Without water markets we can't solve the problem of meeting the <br />future water needs of the West." <br /> <br />In its role as manager ofthe Colorado River, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec <br />released draft regulations in 1994 with provision for intrastate and interstate transfers <br />certain types of water: unused entitlements or water conserved in the Lower Basin. <br />Controversy arose, with states objecting, Arizona the most vigorously, to what was <br />perceived as a federal infringement on state Colorado River rights. BuRec subsequent <br />stepped back, allowing the states and tribes an opportunity to devise their own water <br />banking and marketing plans. Meanwhile BuRec is revising its regulations which whc <br />released will again support transfers and marketing. <br /> <br />Prompted by the federal action the Arizona Legislature in 1995 created a state water <br />banle The bank serves several purposes. For one, it is a strategy for Arizona to secure <br />the unused portion of its 2. 8 million acre-foot Colorado River allocation. <br /> <br />Arizona feels very protective about its unused Colorado River allocation, aware that <br />thirsty California and Nevada have designs on it. Up until CAP came on line in 1985, <br />the state was able to use only about 1.5 maf of its 2.8 million allocation. As noted ear <br />even with CAP on-line Arizona still was not using its full allocation. <br /> <br />Arizona's water bank is to save some of that water for use in the state. Plans call for <br />260,000 af of Colorado River water to be delivered via the CAP aqueduct to central a <br />southern Arizona, for underground storage in existing aquifers or to be exchanged Wil <br />water districts that pump groundwater. Mainly because of the bank's activities, BuRec <br />predicting that Arizona will use its full entitlement for the first time in 1997. <br /> <br />Along with storing the state's unused Colorado River allocation, the Arizona water ba <br />also provides water storage services to California and Nevada. These states can pay <br />Arizona to store any of their unused Colorado River water and then receive credits <br />depending upon how much water is stored. Pursuant to rules to be adopted by the <br />Interior Secretary, Arizona would restore the water to the states in the future. Arizona <br />would do this by using their stored groundwater instead of its Colorado River <br />apportionment. The states could then pump water directly from the river up to the <br />credited amount they stored in Arizona. <br /> <br />http://ag.arizona.eduJAZWATERlarroyo/1 0 1 comm.html <br /> <br />9/12/2006 <br />