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 />' The Colorado River Basin: The Agreements and the Results <br />uses, to sustainin the Coldwater trout fishe below McPhee Dam than was <br />g rY <br />originally contemplated, which fishery largely did not exist prior to the <br />construction of the dam. <br />' Finally, there are the on-going debates among numerous interests concerning <br /> many, many issues about the overall operation of the major reservoirs in the <br /> Colorado River System. While these are beyond the scope of the historical <br />' inquiry being made in this paper, suffice it to say that from the perspective of <br /> Upper Basin water development interests, the CRSP storage units, especially <br /> Glen Canyon Dam, were intended to assist the Upper Division States in <br /> meeting their delivery obligations at Lee Ferry so that they were not <br /> prevented from fully utilizing the consumptive use apportioned to them by the <br /> <br />' Colorado River Compact. Yet, current events threaten, in the eyes of many, <br />otherwise. The tip of the iceberg has been the Grand Canyon Protection Act <br /> of 1992,x' which has required the development of revised operating criteria for <br /> Glen Canyon Dam, which revisions were driven by various environmental <br /> concerns.ss <br /> In summary, upper basin water development interests often believe not only <br /> that they have been denied the federal water projects for which they <br /> bargained, but that they are now also suffering the loss of the benefits which <br /> were to have been provided by the projects that have been constructed. <br /> Furthermore, they often have a sense that this loss of intended benefits is <br />being visited only upon the Upper Division States, but not the Lower Division <br />' States.xx Whatever the reality may be, the perception that the upper basin is <br />being treated inequitably by the federal establishment continues to drive, at <br />least in part, certain of the upper basin lower basin issues of today. <br />1 <br /> x' Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-575, Title XVIII, 106 Stat. 4669. <br /> ea Avery brief summary of the studies, environmental impact statement, and the October, <br /> 1996, record of decision by the Secretary of the Interior concerning the selection of revised <br /> operating criteria for Glen Canyon Dam may be found in UPPER COLORADO RIVER <br /> COMMISSION, supra note 33, at 32-39. <br /> ~ This was an argument frequently heard during the 1980s and early 1990s with respect <br /> to issues associated with endangered fish species, as these issues were first pressed by the <br />' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service starting in 1984 in the Upper Basin. Now, however, the Lower <br /> Basin finds itself in the throws of preparing amulti-species habitat conservation program, just <br /> as the Upper Division States negotiated an Upper Basin Recovery Implementation Program in <br />' 1988 and a separate endangered fish program for the San Juan River Basin which was <br />initiated in 1992. These matters are addressed in the basin study of the Colorado River which <br /> is being prepared for the Commission. <br />31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.