My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8014
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/18/2009 12:24:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8014
Author
McDonald, W. J.
Title
The Upper Basins' Political Conundrum
USFW Year
1997.
USFW - Doc Type
A Deal is Not a Deal.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />An Overview of the Institutional Setting <br />Two disclaimers are in order at the outset. First, the phrases "upper basin <br />water development interests," "upper basin interests," and "upper basin <br />states" will be used interchangeably in this paper to mean those interests, <br />private and governmental, in the upper basins of an interstate river system <br />who support the construction of water development projects. In the past, that <br />would have almost invariably included -- in addition to private water users; <br />local irrigation, conservation, and conservancy districts; and municipalities -- <br />state governments acting through their governors and state water agency <br />officials. However, in using those phrases in this paper when applied to the <br />present time, the author does not presume, one way or another, what an <br />upper basin state government's current policies and positions are with respect <br />to water development in general (federally financed or otherwise) or specific <br />potential federal projects. This is because one can no longer make across the <br />board statements about unequivocal state government support for water <br />project development in the West, a telling observation in and of itself about <br />the question to which this paper is addressed. <br />Second, it is to be acknowledged that there are other aspects to the question of <br />"equities" in the federal development of the West's water resources besides <br />the upper/lower basin issue, most notably with respect to the fulfillment of <br />the United States' trust obligations to Native Americans.3 This paper does <br />not treat these matters, but certainly not because they are unimportant. <br />They are not covered only because the author was not asked to address <br />himself to them, as others are doing so for the Commission's benefit. <br />An Overview of the Institutional Setting <br />C <br /> <br />~~ <br />Introduction <br />Aridity and high variability in stream flows from year to year characterize the <br />climate and hydrology of the West. Furthermore, most river systems in the <br />17 western states receive a very high percentage of their annual flow from <br />s For a thought provolflng treatment of the question of who were "the winners and the <br />losers" in the development of the Colorado River Basin, see H. INGRAM, WATER POLITICS: <br />CONTINUITY AND CHANGE 9-23 (1990). <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.