Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact Page 13 of 15 <br /> <br />Responding to natural forces, rivers have a history apart from humans. In seeking to t <br />and control rivers, whether with a primitive, hand-dug irrigation ditch or the very <br />complex Law of the River, humans impose their history on the river. Human history <br />then affects and, in turn, is affected by the river's natural history. The workings ofthi! <br />process is very evident when examining environmental concerns along the Colorado <br />River. <br /> <br />Future Uncertainties <br /> <br />History demonstrates the need ofthe compact and the Law of the River to be flexible <br />meeting new circumstances. Future situations no doubt will arise to further challenge <br />legal and institutional arrangements regulating the Colorado River. <br /> <br />One such occurrence briefly discussed at the conference is if the United States suffen <br />an economic setback due to a prolonged period of inflation, recession or even a <br />depression. A reordering of river management priorities might then occur. For examp <br />support for recreational and environmental efforts might be questioned. The Grand <br />Canyon Protection Act of 1992 requires that river managers consider recreational and <br />fish and wildlife concerns. The act moderated somewhat the strategy of regulating riv <br />flow to maximize power generation. In the event of financial hardship would such a <br />commitment be maintained? More broadly, what changes would a financial crisis <br />impose on Colorado River management? <br /> <br />Another contingency that would affect river management is severe sustained drought. <br />Again history, this time the history of Colorado River flows, can help set public polic <br />directives. Historical records indicate that droughts of various severity occur <br />periodically. Tree ring records show that 1584 to 1593 was a period of severe drcughl <br />with Colorado River flows averaging about 9.7 maf. More recently, the period from <br />1954 to 1963 averaged 11.826 maf. (See sidebar on page 9 for information on the em <br />of drought on the Colorado River.) <br /> <br />Water shortages were not on the minds of compact negotiators; in fact, they seemed t. <br />believe that surpluses were more likely. As a result, the compact does not include <br />provisions to deal with shortages due to drought. <br /> <br />Some strategies adopted pursuant to the Law of the River are efforts to cope with <br />drought. Water storage facilities built by BuRec provide drought protection to the sta1 <br />particularly the Lower Basin states. These facilities have a capacity of about four timt <br />the annual flow of the Colorado River and are capable of redistributing water from we <br />years to dry years, at least in response to normal climatic fluctuations. <br /> <br />A prolonged drought, however, would strain the entire system. Who then has priority <br />water rights from a drought-stricken Colorado River? This is a debated issue. Referen <br />to the compact and key elements of the Law of the River suggest someanswers. <br />Interpretations, however, vary; a different legal view might find fault with the followi <br />premIses. <br /> <br />Recognizing the likelihood of a Colorado River treaty with Mexico the compact <br />designated that water for that country would come from unallocated "surpluses" then <br />thought to be available. Upper and Lower Basin states would equally make up any <br /> <br />http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATERlarroyo/101comm.html <br /> <br />9/12/2006 <br />