Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />USDI Secretary Babbitt on Colorado River Issues <br /> <br />Page 2 of6 <br /> <br />environment, cultural resources, water delivery, and hydropower generation. <br /> <br />We have entered into a partnership and funding agreement with the Lower Basin <br />States and other interested parties to develop a multi-species management plan <br />for the Lower Basin. Formal interim S 7 consultation between the Bureau of <br />Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service on river operations is ongoing and <br />should be concluded in the Spring of 1997. Our plan is that a long term multi- <br />species management plan will supersede the interim consultation, and will <br />simultaneously provide both for protection of threatened and endangered species <br />in the Lower Basin and for continued delivery of water and power benefits form <br />the river. <br /> <br />I also want to commend the efforts of Governor Romer and Lt. Governor <br />Shoettler of Colorado, who have convened a process for the purpose of seeking a <br />resolution of the protracted controversy over the Animas-La Plata project. They <br />have done so at considerable political risk, and the issues are divisive and <br />emotional. I have given the process my full support. It is moving along <br />satisfactorily so far, and it may provide a helpful model for negotiated settlement <br />of knotty problems within the Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />On the other side of the ledger, in California serious unresolved controversies remain both <br />between agricultural agencies, and among the urban water suppliers. No progress is being <br />made toward a settlement of the San Luis Rey water claims as directed by Congress. The <br />mediation process that was taking place has ground to a halt. <br /> <br />It is a matter of special sensitivity that the concerns of other Basin states with the long term <br />future of California's demands on the Colorado River have not been addressed. To be sure, <br />this is only the most recent version of an issue that has been central to Colorado River <br />controversy for seven decades. When California was pressing for the construction of <br />Boulder Dam in the 1920's, other Basin states were concerned that its rapid development <br />would gain it the lion's share of the river under prior appropriation principles, to their <br />disadvantage. This fear prompted the development of the Colorado River Compact in 1922, <br />and the provision in the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act requiring California to enact a <br />law limiting its Colorado River contractors to normal use of 4.4 million acre-feet (mat). <br /> <br />California's uses are expected to go above 5.2 mafthis year, exceeding by some 80,000 acre- <br />feet its basic entitlement of 4.4 maf. In contrast to the past, however, the unused Lower <br />Basin apportionment upon which California has relied is shrinking. For the first time ever, <br />this year, demand for water in the Lower Basin exceeded the Basin's basic apportionment of <br />7.5 maf. Demand is expected to exceed 8 million acre-feet this coming year. Consumption in <br />each of the three lower division states has been growing, and we can anticipate that with <br />present patterns of use, demand will continue regularly to exceed 7.5 maf. <br /> <br />Fortunately, in the last few years water has been abundant. We have approximately 50 maf <br />in storage on the Colorado River system, some 83% of system capacity. Analysis shows a <br /> <br />http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/saltonlsecr_babbitt_CoR_issues.htm <br /> <br />9/12/2006 <br />