9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

been, historically, to tie up this federal project water and the state project water in defined uses, making it immune from operation of an internal market in California. We dedicate the uses to things that might not withstand market scrutiny and look elsewhere for our basic supplies. If we are dumb enough to count on that for a long term basis then maybe we deserve to die. James Lochhead: I would like to follow up on that. One prime basis for the proposal that Governor Romer made a year ago was the issue that John was eluding to -- the potential threat of the economic power of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the need to push California to resolve some of the issues within California and, in fact, develop that market within California. I was speaking at a seminar a couple of weeks ago and was asked the question -- Colorado is the bastian of prior appropriation and free market systems, why then is Colorado so afraid of a prior appropriation doctrine on the Colorado River? I think that was a good question. I think there are two responses. First is the fact that Colorado early recognized that the prior appropriation system on an interstate basis on the Colorado River would ultimately operate to our detriment. Secondly, if we are ever going to have such a system, we need to level the playing field. California needs to have a free market system within California before they come looking to the Upper Basin and drying up the Grand Valley in order to provide water for metropolitan Southern California. I think that would only be right. Carroll Multz: To piggyback from both Jim and John, I think I envision the most difficult job that the Upper Colorado River Commission will face, and Jack you can vouch for this I assume, is the balancing act, the balancing test. How do you balance all of the equities and the interests of seven different states? It is going to be a very difficult thing. If we had the answer, we would be consultants to the government and we would be making the kind of money that Jim Lochhead is making. Question: Under normal climate conditions I believe evaporative losses in the Lower Colorado Basin are between 1-2 million acre-feet, which is a factor we need to incorporate into the management of Colorado River system. Several speakers had indicated the Lower Basin, including Mexico, has received 9 million acre-feet for several years during the 1980's, while over 20 million acre-feet actually passed Lee's Ferry. Apparently, none of this water entered the Pacific Ocean. My question is where did this roughly 10 million acre- feet go? Secondly, is the real evaporative loses several times the. 1-2 million acre-feet estimate? If so, what is an accurate annual evaporative loss for both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin -- at least educated approximation would be a good starting point? Finally, what are potential evaporative loses under mild, moderate, and worst case global warming conditions for both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin? Paul Frohardt: That is a pretty complex series of questions, but I 35