PUB00161 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 UDENWLR 290 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290 (Cite as: 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290) Page 3 feet in excess of its basic apportionment. Increasing water use in Arizona and Nevada that has pushed total water use in the Lower Basin rFN61 over its Compact allocation has exacerbated the problem. As a result, the Secretary of the Interior and the Basin states, other than California, [FN71 have pressured California water supply agencies to reduce their dependence on surplus Colorado River flows. Additionally, they have demanded California meet its legal obligation to live within its means under the Law of the River. The reason for such mandates is simple and illustrates why solving the California problem is of fundamental importance to the other states. If California is allowed to continue to exceed its basic apportionment in the face of increasing need in the other Basin states, and if established allocations are not enforced, then the foundation of the Law of the River--the allocation of the right to consume water among the states--may be meaningless. This loss of security of allocation would undermine the certainty and reliability of supply for water users in each of the Basin states, thereby making resolution of other management and environmental issues on the Colorado River virtually impossible, short of divisive, costly, and time-consuming litigation. A reliable allocation of supply provides a legal framework through which the federal government and the states can manage the Colorado River to meet changing demands and values. Therefore, each state has a vital stake in assuring the maintenance and enforcement of that framework. The Law of the River, of which the Compact is the foundation, is the product of economic need, social conflict, politics, and law. To appreciate fully this set of laws, one must understand the historical context that created the laws and the motives of those who fought for and negotiated each compromise. Through that understanding, one *293 can discern the policy underpinnings of the current positions of the states, tribes, and water agencies that rely on the Colorado River's supply. Therefore, this article will examine the historical context ofthe Law ofthe River before reviewing the evolution and potential resolution of the current problem of California's dependence on surplus flows. This article will consist of two parts. Part I will review the development of the Law of the River from an Upper Basin perspective. It will focus on the motivations of the Upper Division states, particularly Colorado, in pressing for the Compact and later laws. These motivations were premised on key themes or principles that remain relevant today. Part I also will summarize a few of the major unresolved issues under the Law of the River that create uncertainty, and therefore motivate the Upper Basin to press the California issue. Part II of the article, which will appear in a later edition of the University of Denver Water Law Review, will use the historical perspective of Part I as a basis to review the history of discussions over the last ten years between the states, the Department of the Interior, Indian Tribes, and other water users. These discussions have resulted in historic proposals and agreements by which California agencies will in fact work toward reducing their overall water use. Since, like other states, California requires some reliability of supply, interim surplus guidelines for the operation of Colorado River Reservoirs will facilitate this "California Plan." Adopted by the Secretary of the Interior, these procedures will guide operations of the reservoirs in a way that will assist California in achieving a "soft landing" to water use within its basic allocation. II. THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT The development of the Colorado River began when the early irrigation of the Imperial Valley in California involved a canal route through Mexico. The canal route required the cooperation of the Mexican government and implicated international relations between the United States and Mexico. [FN81 This international complication increased the desire in the Imperial Valley for an "All-American Canal" and led to discussion and debate over the need to construct large storage facilities on the lower Colorado River. [FN91 Irrigation interests in California clamored for construction of a large dam to reduce the threat of floods, such as those that occurred between 1905 and 1907 and created the Salton Sea. [FNIO) These interests looked to enhance the reliability and security of their water supply. Competing proposals for development of a large hydroelectric project augmented the demand for a large reservoir. It soon became clear that such comprehensive financing and *294 development required the assistance of the federal government. Comments of federal employees and commentators, such as John Wesley Powell, Richard J. Hinton, and Arthur Powell Davis, further fueled the debate. As early as 1878, they argued for federal control over the comprehensive development of the Colorado River. rFNll1 However, federal assistance also required the cooperation of the other Basin states, which successfully blocked any financing proposals in Congress. The Upper Basin was anxious about the potential rate of development in the Lower Basin and was concerned that the water supply forecasts of the federal government might be unreasonably optimistic. [FN121 Thus, the California proposals threatened the security and reliability of the Upper Basin supply. @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. -