|
<br />
<br />THE
<br />CHANGING
<br />ROLE OFTHE
<br />SECRETARY ON
<br />THE COLORADO
<br />RIVER
<br />
<br />had been rendered, the states kind of came together
<br />and seemed to have consensus and be able to develop
<br />consensus around issues of common interest. Because
<br />the Lower Basin had not yet developed its full supply,
<br />there really wasn't a lot of controversy around the
<br />development of operating plans or the allocation of
<br />water. Everybody was accepting the decision of the
<br />Supreme Court and kind of moving on. That's my
<br />characterization of the Reagan Administration. I
<br />know that many of you will have different views and
<br />we'll give you a chance to ask questions.
<br />
<br />JOHN SAYRE,
<br />
<br />FORMER AsSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
<br />
<br />INTERIOR, BUSH ADMINISTRATION
<br />
<br />When I was asked by Rita whether I would do this
<br />or not, I said at my age, I have a little trouble
<br />remembering what happened yesterday, much less
<br />what happened 10 years ago or so. So I sat down and
<br />took Bob's [ques-
<br />tions] and I guess I've
<br />approached it a little
<br />differently. I'm going
<br />to talk as much as I
<br />can about the specific
<br />things that we tried
<br />to do during the
<br />time.
<br />During this
<br />period, of course,
<br />Manuel Lujan was the Secretary. I think if you will
<br />remember, he had his hands full with things like the
<br />oil spill up in Alaska, the spotted owl, the Everglades
<br />issue was beginning to come up. While he really was
<br />interested in water, he didn't have the time that he
<br />would have liked to have had to do things. He did
<br />know quite a bit about New Mexico, of course,
<br />having come from there. We had new problems. I can
<br />remember at my confirmation hearing, Senator
<br />Bradley got me in there and really emphasized in his
<br />own way that we had to do something on Indian
<br />water rights settlements. I think we got a little done. I
<br />think there's still, even today, a lot to be done.
<br />To start, I'm going to talk about what we did
<br />during that period, specific things, on the Colorado
<br />River. If you will remember the period from 1988 to
<br />1992 was one of water shortages and drought
<br />throughout the West, including the Colorado River.
<br />At the same time, environmental requirements were
<br />of great concern. The Central Arizona Project was
<br />nearing completion with increased diversions for that
<br />project to be considered as well as construction
<br />problems. Increased emphasis on Indian water rights
<br />settlement claims had to be addressed and efforts
<br />
<br />The doctrine of "state
<br />
<br />SYMPOSIUM
<br />PROCEEDINGS
<br />SEPTEMBER 1999
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />sovereignty" was of
<br />
<br />
<br />utmost importance
<br />
<br />to the Secretary.
<br />
<br />- John Sayre
<br />
<br />made to begin resolution of these Indian claims were
<br />a pressing concern on most matters addressed.
<br />Bob asked me to discuss in a summary fashion,
<br />the involvement of the Bush Administration on
<br />Colorado River issues. I will only mention a few, but
<br />first, I would like to emphasize that the doctrine of
<br />"state sovereignty" was of utmost importance to the
<br />Secretary, as well as the fact that the dollars for
<br />Reclamation efforts were beginning to dwindle,
<br />particularly construction funds.
<br />Now back to some of the issues which required
<br />attention. First, the allocation of Colorado River
<br />supplies became increasingly difficult during this
<br />period. If Lake Powell and Lake Mead had not been
<br />full as we entered this period, severe shortages would
<br />have existed. But as time went on, the situation
<br />became worse. In fact, it finally led to a proposal by
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation in late 1992 or early 1993
<br />to quantify the first three priorities of the [California]
<br />Seven-Party Agreement. Frankly, I never saw the
<br />proposal until the other day when I obtained a copy. I
<br />was still in office, but I guess it was so close to the
<br />end of the Administration that I didn't see it,
<br />although I think I probably should have since it
<br />seems to me that it is a policy issue as well as a
<br />practical issue.
<br />Bob Towles, who was then the Regional Director
<br />of the Lower Colorado, sent it out for comment but
<br />nothing happened on it and such a quantification has
<br />not occurred to date, although there are talks going
<br />on all the time about that particular problem.
<br />Second, probably one of the most important
<br />things that happened was the preparation of the
<br />Environment Impact Statement on the operations of
<br />Glen Canyon Dam in July of 1989. This followed a
<br />final report, dated January 1, 1988, on Glen Canyon
<br />Environmental Studies by agencies of the Interior
<br />Department, including the Bureau of Reclamation
<br />and the USGS, both then under my supervision, and
<br />several private consultants. This led to the develop-
<br />ment and implementation of interim operating
<br />procedures for Glen Canyon Dam, integration with
<br />the operating procedures established pursuant to the
<br />Colorado River Basin Act of 1948.
<br />But of utmost importance was the fact that these
<br />procedures were not to interfere with the primary
<br />water storage and delivery facilities under the Law of
<br />the River. We all argue about what the Law of the
<br />River is. Needless to say, a very difficult task for
<br />everyone. However, these studies and the EIS led to
<br />the enactment of the Grand Canyon Protection Act
<br />in late 1992, I think it was October.
<br />Third, as previousLy mentioned, the Central
<br />Arizona Project was essentially completed. But as it
<br />began operations, many problems arose. Such a
<br />
|