Laserfiche WebLink
<br />B. Conclusions <br /> <br />1. The recent water supply studies have glossed over a <br />number of critical variables, and created an over-optimistic <br />impression of the availability of water for energy develop- <br />ment in the Upper Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />2. The two most critical variables are the possible <br />downtrend in Colorado River virgin flows, and the at least <br />2.0 MAF basin-wide deficit which has crept into the water <br />development plans for the entire Colorado River Basin. The <br />manner in which this deficit will be managed is the key to <br />continued development of the Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />3. Under all but the most optimistic scenarios, each <br />Upper Basin state has reached or passed the point at which it <br />must begin making decisions about apportioning its 1948 <br />Compact entitlement to each of its Colorado River tribu- <br />taries. Water projects which are built without regard to <br />such benchmarks for tributary apportionments must eventually <br />compete for the same legal water supply with other projects <br />in the same Upper Basin state, another Upper Basin state, or <br />the Lower Basin. Such benchmarks could therefore serve as an <br />early warning against such overbuilding. <br /> <br />4. interstate compact constraints could have a drama- <br />tic and overriding impact on intrastate water rights and <br />development plans. Such constraints, rather than physical <br />water availability, intrastate priority, and intrastate <br />stream location, may become the most fundamental determinants <br />of the value of an intrastate water right or of the feasibi- <br />lity of an intrastate water project. <br /> <br />.~i .. <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />" <br />