Laserfiche WebLink
<br />breath, and at the urging of the Northwestern States which <br />were a possible source of the augmentation water for these <br />projects, Congress imposed a ten year moratorium on the ini- <br />tiation of any federal study of any scheme to augment the <br />Colorado River by importing water from other basins. In <br />effect, Congress and the Colorado River Basin states were <br />gambling that the development of the necessary augmentation <br />schemes could be delayed for 10 years. <br /> <br />This gamble was nonetheless hedged in two ways: First, <br />the 1968 Act included a provision which would drastically <br />curtail existing and projected Lower Basin water depletions <br />in the event that these augmentation hopes never <br />materialized. Under this provision, California's existing <br />use of Colorado River mainstem water (around 5.0 MAF/year) <br />would be cut back to 4.4 MAF/year and Arizona would probably <br />be limited to about 1.7 MAF/year of mainstem water (leaving a <br />good part of the Central Arizona Project's 1.2 MAF/year pro- <br />posed capacity without a supply). Second, the Act directed <br />the Secetary of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive <br />study of how the Colorado River virgin flows could be <br />augmented, or basin-wide water demands otherwise met, without <br />importing any water from outside the basin. <br /> <br />The critical variable which must be considered in eva- <br />luating the availability of water for energy development in <br />the Upper Basin is whether these tenuous compromises will <br />hold up. The moratorium on the commencement of any study of <br />massive transbasin importation schemes has been extended <br />another 10 years to 1988. There are also substantial <br />questions about whether massive transbasin importation or <br />other schemes for augmenting the Colorado River will ever be <br />economically or environmentally feasible. Quite soon, it may <br />be necessary to choose between curbing the water supply <br />expectations of developed Lower Basin, multi-bilion dollar <br />regional economies, or reining in energy related and other <br />water developments in the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />d. Failure to Curtail the Lower Basin <br /> <br />If it is not possible to ~ugment the Lower <br />Colorado River by 2.0 MAF and the curtailment provisions of <br />the 1968 Act are not able ~withstand the political clout <br />that has grown up around the Lower Basin's existing and pro- <br />jected uses, an additional constraint will be imposed on the <br />availability of water in the Upper Basin. The potential <br />impact of such unaugmented, uncurtailed Lower Basin water <br />development on Upper Basin physical supplies is shown on <br />Table 2. <br /> <br />~:. <br />" <br /> <br />-18- <br />