9298

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9298
• Author: Water Education Foundation.
• Title: Colorado River Project
• USFW Year: 1999.
• USFW - Doc Type: Symposium Proceedings.
• Copyright Material: NO

the continuity. One place you might afford continu-
ity is in the staff of a commission. For example, the
Upper Colorado Commission offers a pretty good
opportunity for continuity and the preservation of
institutional memory.

WEATHERFORD: While I guess one can make the
case that we are at a low point, could we not be on
the cusp of really reaching a new level? It seems to me
if we had resolution of the CAP issues, we had the
Secretary's offstream regulations, we had a 4.4 Plan
that was acceptable throughour the basin, wouldn't
we be at a level where we could actually begin to take
on a new generation of problems and think of new
institutions?

UNDERWOOD: Gary, I agree with you. I person-
ally believe there had to be some discussion, some
pain, some blood letting, so to speak, because people
weren't talking. But when push comes to shove in
California, they had to come to a resolution. We
could never be the first ones to go to another state
with a straight face and talk about interstate market-
ing if we don't have our house in order. We had to go
through that pain. I believe we're there. There is still
some pain that has to be suffered. Maybe it's today.
But I agree with you, I think we are making that
turn, and it's based on the commitment. It took a
while.
Fundamentally, I've been out of the picture for
awhile and working more in the private sector, but
I'm just amazed at the level of mistrust. The idea that
you have to have protective language on every little
piece of paper and it's not just here. It's not just
California. It's everywhere. It's just a complete lack of
trust, a breakdown. I think we are turning because we
had an opportunity to mature, to discuss the issues,
not to hide them, ro face them straight on because
we're being forced to face them straight on. Some of
it's through the prodding of the Secretary, some of it's
just our own prodding. We recognize that we have to
get our house in order if, in fact, we're going to meet
our future needs.

MULROY: One thing I hope comes out of your
discussions in California, Dennis, is the question I
asked your board on Monday: Who is the steward of
California's water resources, especially their Colorado
River resources? Who holds that stewardship respon-
sibility in the state of California?

UNDERWOOD: I'm going to try to answer very
briefly. We have a state agency charged with the

protection of California's rights and interests in the
river and it's the Colorado Rivet Board. The problem
was because the parties didn't want to compromise
the board or they didn't think it was the right forum,
they thought they could deal with each other better
separately. I think we need to come back to the
realization that you do need to have a voice for the
state, not only the parties. There has to be one voice
and it has to be a single overall stewardship. And I
think you will see that. As we resolve these issues and
people start mending and coming back together, I
think you'll see that happen.

WEATHERFORD: I think those of you in the
audience can see here an underlying common theme
of this group and that is the value judgment of
retaining public control of the waters, in Pat's words,
public stewardship. We don't have a representative on
the panel from
private capital so
that's certainly an
issue some of you
in the audience
may want to be
heard on. We have
time for questions
from the floor. I
want ro thank the
panel very much for
their presentations
and the exchanges.

At some point, a state

that is not currently

WATER
MARKETING
ON THE
COLORADO
RIVER

using its full allocation
will, and the water will

have to come back.

- Michael Quealy

QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE: A wise
man by the name of Malcom Wallop once told us at a
hearing that Bill Bradley had called on CAP, "If you
let them drink it, you'll never get it back." Given the
reluctance of Utah, the tribes and I presume the other
states that currently have more water than they're
using to permanently allow that to be transferred
somewhere else: Are you not really talking about a
water marketing program that is institutional trading
for things like groundwater recharge or in lieu
recharge that work through government systems
rather than a free market? Because you can't let people
directly drink this water and become dependent on it.

WEATHERFORD: Mike, I think a part of your
proposal involved such a right of recall, which a lot of
people are skeptical about.

QUEALY: I have some of those same concerns
myself. It's like people going ahead and flipping out
their MasterCard. At some point the bill has to be

SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1999

..~