9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Just as a matter of interest, some litigation that took place in the City of Gunnison last summer, involved both the CRSPA and the River Basin Project Act rather prominently because, as you know, the Aspinall unit is a CRSPA proj ect feature. There were several questions presented to the court in connection with those acts; and the United States was prominent in its participation, both by presentations of evidence by witnesses and by their special counsel. The contention was made that the water stored in those reservoirs was not being beneficially used. There was no valid use. Anyone could take the water out of the reservoirs. That contention has not succeeded to this point. The water judge decided that the water was being validly used and he recognized that the water was partially used by letting it flow down the river to meet the commitments to the Lower Basin. Nonetheless, he recognized the use as valid and the appropriations as valid. It seems to me that sometimes we feel very divorced from these acts, and what is happening on the river. Then you realize when you go down and have dinner at the marina, or drive by there, that the reservoir, Blue Mesa, recently played a somewhat prominent role in litigation. This analysis of the Colorado River since the 1922 Compact may not be totally exhaustive, but it is illustrative of the fact that state and federal legislation has weaved the apportionment of waters into the Law of the River and indeed the lives of the citizens and states that depend on the river. As I said, I think Congress can change the Compact if it chooses to do so. I am aware of the political clout and power that is held by California. I am aware that there are many, many other areas in this nation with more political clout than the river basin sans California. Nonetheless, it is not a simple matter to assault this Compact straight on by legislation. While it would be difficult, it would not be impossible for the basin to emerge victorious. That is a risk that Colorado and the basin must live with. However, such an effort to change by legislation does not seem likely in the foreseeable future. I agree with one facet of Lori's presentation. The greatest threat to the viability of our Compact comes from the Endangered Species Act, salinity problems, the Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness legislation, etc. Section VI consultations relative to the operation of Flaming Gorge have been concluded. It changed the method of operation of that reservoir from its historical past. Consultation is ongoing with respect to Glen Canyon. It is about to start on the Aspinall Unit and the Navajo Dam will follow soon thereafter. I guess it is an irony of living that notwithstanding your right hand's ability to allocate the use of the Colorado River water, your left hand may extract that right of use under the protection of the environment. No one recognizes more than I the fact that people make laws. We are in a sparsely populated area. However, I do not notice people changing the law of property, and yet the ownership of property is congregated in a small percentage of our population. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of people. There is a matter of the mores of society. There is the matter of law, basic law upon which this entire nation is based. While people change laws, they do not change the Bill of Rights. They do not change that which is sacred to them. 26