Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact Page 14 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />resulting "deficiency." A 1944 U.S-Mexico treaty allocated 1.5 maf of Colorado Rive <br />water to Mexico. In the absence of surpluses, it would seem that the Upper and Lowe <br />Basin states, according to the compact, must each provide 750,000 af for Mexican USt <br />Some say this would be a priority even during severe, sustained drought. <br /> <br />Meeting "present perfected rights" pre-dating the compact including tribal reserved <br />water rights also might be a priority. The compact designated that its provisions woul <br />not affect such rights. At the time, this mainly referred to irrigators using Colorado Ri <br />water. The 1964 Supreme Court decision California v. Arizona recognized tribal <br />reserved water rights under the Winters Doctrine to be present perfected rights. <br /> <br />The compact directs the Upper Basin states to deliver 75 mafin any ten-year period t( <br />the Lower Basin states. To help the Upper Basin states make good this obligation, the <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 authorized four projects. In the event of ( <br />severe drought, the Upper Basin states might need to curtail water use to fulfill their <br />delivery obligation. <br /> <br />With the occurrence of drought, various ambiguities and uncertainties no doubt woul( <br />surface to challenge the Law of the River. Not securely in place are the necessary leg: <br />and institutional mechanisms to interpret the priories, define various options and devi <br />strategies for dealing with drought. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />A Greek philosopher once said a person never steps into the same river twice. Water <br />flows and surges onward, replacing and replenishing itself. And, indeed, in philosoph <br />and literature a flowing river often symbolizes change and the passing of time. <br /> <br />That a flowing river represents change might also be borne out in public policy matte: <br />This is evident in a study of the Colorado River Compact. In "Future Scenario: On the <br />Colorado River," a concluding session at the Santa Fe conference, Gary Weatherford, <br />attorney with Weatherford & Taaffe, conveyed a sense of that change by <br />chronologically listing various events. <br /> <br />Weatherford emphasized the relatively brief time span, 68 years, between when the <br />compact became effective in 1929 to the present. He also mentioned that only 51 yem <br />have passed since the Upper Basin states submitted to Congress their Colorado River <br />planning document. This was at about the same time that the Central Arizona Project <br />was officially presented. Lake Powell was filled 35 years ago. Three years ago AriZOI <br />expected not to be using its full CAP allocation until 2040; last year Arizona amende( <br />its prediction, now expecting full use by 1998. Public policy changes occur swiftly all <br />the Colorado River. <br /> <br />Not only does public policy run a swift course but it also broadens to cover new areas <br />Consider three issues not addressed by the compact: water quality, endangered fish, a <br />recreation. As these issues emerged the need for regulatory action became apparent. I <br />response, the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was passed to deal witl <br />salinity and water quality; the 1973 Endangered Species Act protected endangered fis <br />and the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act recognized the recreational value of the <br />Colorado River to Grand Canyon National Park. <br /> <br />http://ag.arizona.eduJAZWATERlarroyo/101comm.html <br /> <br />9/1212006 <br />