9407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATES' PERSPECTIVES Reclamation has estimated that what the Upper Basin has left is about 6 million acre-feet. The Upper Basin states disagree with that, I might add. Under that interpretation, Colorado still has a significant remaining entitlement to develop. And clearly the reservoir system that was constructed - the bank accounts that were created in order to allow the Upper Basin to deliver water to the Lower Basin - have greatly assisted in that. The Compact commis- sioners, the original negotiators, clearly felt there was more water than there was. But I also have this sense that they were hedging their bets. There was controversy and there were alternative views about how much water was in the river, and certainly there were engineers who felt that there was only about 15 million acre-feet in the river, which turned out to be fairly prophetic since that's about the average over the last period of record. The regulatory system has in fact worked pretty well. Carpenter also had views on what he felt were the natural limitations of transbasin diversions in Colorado that turned out to be quite prophetie. He viewed those as somewhere around a half a million acre-feet in total, and total trans basin diversions today are what, about 400,000 acre-feet in Colorado? So we haven't reached the limit yet, I don't think. Clearly the Treasury . , th Isn t ere any more - Muvs: A number of you mentioned how important it was to have the Upper Basin Compact allocation in perpetuity, which is certainly true vis a vis the other the Treasury's divorced those of us that are still SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS MAY 1997 o developing water. - Jeff Fassett compacting states, but hasn't Congress and the federal agencies with the overlay of environmental and other statutes eroded the permanency not only of your allocation, but also the Lower Basin's, particularly in the Endangered Species Act and other legislation that we never foresaw, that dedicates water to other purposes, regardless of what we all thought we were doing in 1922? How do we deal with that? FASSETT: The answer, in part, is not yet. You used the line about when you're married to the Treasury... Clearly the Treasury isn't there any more - the Treasury's divorced those of us that are still develop- ing water. And we're not looking for the Treasury any longer. Our vision isn't the federal Treasury. But you're right, Jerry, the issue is now not the federal Treasury, but the new array of federal regulatory laws. We have found good sources of money in our state and we continue to use both public and private sector dollars within Wyoming to continue to develop our share. We're not looking for the massive federal appropriations that there were in the past. But it is indeed rhe regulatory environment that is the threat, and as we view it today, we have worked our way through that. It is not at this moment an absolute stopper. LOCHHEAD: The partnership that we have with the federal government in terms of implementing the Endangered Species Act through the Upper Basin Recovery Program, from a Colorado perspective, has the potential to work and to accommodate the interests of the Endangered Species Act within the principles that Delph Carpenter was trying to preserve in the Compact. Specifically, the state of Colorado has embarked on the preservation of flows in-state through state law, not through federal regulatory law, and the basis of the recovery program is that the species will be recovered while still allowing full Compact development within each of the Upper Basin states. At this point I think we have a fair accommodation of those interests and a solid partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service in implementing that. PEARSON: I would like to echo Jim's comments. In the Lower Basin we just executed a multi-state conservation agreement which will make giant strides in conserving the species that are dependent upon the Colorado River system in the Lower Basin. And I would voice a concern that efforts to use the court system and undermine that administrative process I don't think are helpful because it takes a great deal of effort - both human resources and financial resources - to develop a plan as we did with our partners in the federal government. When those efforts are under- mined by utilizing the court process as a way in which to leverage the system, I don't think you have productive results, and it undermines the trust that is so carefully knit together in developing these types of agreements. QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE: How do you interpret the law at the time that the shortage kicks in? What is it that you think the law says? LOCHHEAD: Obviously that's going to be an interesting time. It is obvious, when you look at the environmental and the recreational interests in this