9367 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There are other problems in the Compact. First of all, the Mexican Treaty did come to pass. The United States did promise to deliver over 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico and that burden has to be born. This led Mr. Parks, our former director of the Water Conservation Board to say that the Upper Basin was facing a future built on left-overs -- what was left-over after Mexico was satisfied, what was left-over after the guarantee, or the so-called guarantee, to the Lower Basin. There is another problem related to the Mexican Treaty obligation. When the Compact was drafted, it explicitly states that the division is made _of the Colorado River and all of its tributaries. There is a large tributary of the Colorado River in Arizona, which rises in New Mexico, flows southwesterly across the state, through Phoenix, through the Salt River Valley -- it is the Gila River System. That river has been fully developed and used, in the economic sense, within Arizona. Arizona did not want that water made a part of the Compact. They refused to sign the Compact because of this provision that I have just referred to. Ultimately, Arizona ratified the Compact twenty-two years after it was signed, stating that it was clear the Gila River was not included in the Compact. This was a most remarkable vote pas because Carl Hayden, their senator, had introduced numerous amendments to the legislation authorizing the United States Congress to remove the Gila River from the language. Since the time of the Gila River issue, there have been other problems surfacing with regards to the Colorado River. Our nation has changed in many ways. We have a variety of environmental laws. We have a whole panoply of conflicting and overlapping laws, which tend to make development of water for classic beneficial use more and more difficult. There is another section in the Compact that I want to call to your attention. It is subparagraph E of Article III. It says, "The states of the Upper Division shall not withhold water and the states of the Lower Division shall not require the delivery of water, which cannot reasonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses." This section says that if the water is not being used in Colorado and it flows down the river, anyone can use it, regardless of whether it is within their allotment of the 7.5 million acre-feet or not. California has taken to that with an enthusiasm that I am sure Jim Lochhead will address. I am not sure what the total volume of California uses are these days, but they are surely, substantially in excess of 4.4 million acre-feet per year, which was the cap put on them by litigation in the United States Supreme Court in 1963. The problem again comes back to this allotment of water, whether it is 7.5 million acre-feet to the Upper Basin, or whether it is 7.5 million acre-feet less the guarantee read into Article III that we are still not using. That means that California under Article E is fully. entitled, supposedly, to use the water. They have built an economy in reliance on it. Many profound thinkers wonder how would those uses ever be divested. That has been the focus of Colorado's concern and nervousness for the last twenty years. There are legitimate questions, it seems to me, that should be asked in Colorado. Is this an academic exercise, or is this just water buffalo thinking? Is it silly to worry about this? Is there a future that we need to protect? Is it realistic to think we can 6