WSP12997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-I' ""''lP".~ ~.. ., J :\<"'I"rll~4"UdM..JA"'A ~ 4Ir'-- ,..'" .... -.. -_~..' _ _ __ l2Iifl Wil ~.IU ;'-..Sun.,Jan.25,1998 RockyMountainNews' ~c&- --- . ~orJ.' J . -" t c..' #'"\W": "'u'/ - --"{:-oLUMNS --------- __v~ q~ --- :' fColorado.should keep its compact .1.....;..s.LId.:...d ... .... ..- Ba~in as a whole was still within its basic apportionment under the compact. This year, because of recent wet years and full reservoirs, the Lower Basin will use over 8 million acre-feet, as against its 7.5 million acre-foot apPortionment. Anticipating this increased use, Colorado has taken steps to protect our position under the compact. In 1991, Colorado led the other six CQlorado River Basin states in insisting that California go on a "water diet" to get its use back to its basic apportionment. With the backing of Inte- rior Secretary Babbitt, California has acknowledged its legal responsibility and is working on a "4.4 PIan" to do just that. Implementing the California 4.4 Plan will not only reduce Cal- ifornia's overreliance on Colorado River wate!; but it will also affirm for Colorado and the other Upper Basin states the pro- tections afforded to us under the compact. Colorado's position has been that "Lower Basin water allocation problems, such as California's overuse and Neva- da's farm needs, should be solved in the Lower Basin. These'Lower Basin problems should not be solved at the expense of the Upper Basin. Babbitt's proposal to allow water banking - not water transfers - between Lower Basin states is consistent with Colorado's position. The proposal deserves our support. _ - " - But we -should not entertain any proposal to market C-ol- orado's future by marketing our wate& We must stick to our strategy of protecting Colorado's rights under the compact. If we deviate, we ....ill throwaway all the protection the compact affords us. 'That would be foUy. This is especially true now that California is making an effort to reduce its water use and with the advent of Lower Basin water banking. That would be irre- sponsible to both present Colo~dans and future generations. . Janus S. Lochhead is executive director of the Colorado Depart- ment of Natural Resources. - Recently, Interior SecretarY Bruce Babbitt announced that the Bureau of Reclamation would soon issue draft regu- lations allowing interstate water banking in the Lower Col- orado River Basin. This proposal - together with some inaccurate press reports - prompted the Rocky Mountain -News to propose in an editorial that Colorado sell or lease its unused entitlement to California or Nevada. In essence, the argument is that the lower states should pay Jor what they are now getting for free. _ At first blush, the argument is appealing. But the idea is akin to the kids selling off the family jewels to throw a party. In the long term, it would damage our economy and our emiroiunenl In 1922, a shrewd and principled Colorado lawyer named Delph Carpenter leCl the negotiation of the Cplorado River Compact. This was an interstate agreement between the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) iand the Lower Basin (Arizona. California and Nevada). Car- :penter ~"aS afraid that the faster-gro....ing Lower Basin, " jprincipally California, would. develop the river and cla.im its - WAter before the Upper Basm even had the opportumty. So :, lheso1.Ightprotectionunder!heco~ct.,: . --. _ ._- ;(. t The. essence of the a~ment"was that the Upper-Basm _ .~~ ~would not allow the flow of the river to drop below a specified " 'amount - 75 million acre-feet over a running 10-year aver- -" ,'lage. 1n exchange. the Lower Basin agreed that the Upper $'_'- ;Basm wo~d have the right~forever -to develop ~tever .,,', flow remamed. In the meantime, the compact reqUIres Col- }~;:orado and the other__Upper Basin states to allow water we ,"'" "don't need to flow to the Lower Basin until we need it. ._ ~:. _ This is the genius Qf the compact. By requiring Colorado ,- and its neighbors to send_ unused water to the Lower Basin -- - at no cost for their immediate use: it continually reaffirms Colorado's right to claim that water in the future. n " If we now try to extract money for that unused water - even on a temporary lease basis -:- we will be breaking the - compact that has stood for 75 years. We cannot sell or lease Colorado's share ....ithout losing the protections afforded by the cOmpact, in~luding-the protected right to use more.of our share in the future. In fact, we would undoubteQly be , forced to renegotiate. the Compact. Is it worth giving up the . benefits of the compact ~ selling the family jewels - for '"' someshort-termprofit?o_ """,-- _-,--~_-. _." i Contrary to pOpular perception. -California has not been lusing "Colorado's"- water. California has in recent years been using about 5.2 million acre-feet of water per year, as ;against its entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet per year. But Until this year, California was using Arizona's and Kevada's unused entitlements, not the Upper Basin's. The Lower The Colorado River fills lake Powell in Utah. - - ---- "