9367 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

occurred to me. It seems to me that we solve yesterday's problems
with today's litigation, or social struggles. We are always reaching
a resolution today about something that might have been more to the
point twenty years ago. I wonder if that is true with regards to some
of the thoughts expressed that recreation water usage is the future
of Colorado. Perhaps that is the past. That might have been the
function of really rich people, and maybe the United States and the
people of the United States are no longer really rich. Maybe we
cannot afford that kind of thing. Maybe we will have to do different
things because we are poor. I would be curious if anyone thinks that
is relevant in anyway.

James Lochhead: To me, it goes to the point that Lori mentioned that
in 1922 the negotiators of the Compact would hardly have been able to
conceive the development of the system of laws, regulations, dams,
reservoirs, and everything else we have today. They had some pretty
grandiose ideas, but those ideas were primarily based on a perceived
need for irrigation in the Colorado River Basin. They certainly did
not conceptualize the great recreation economies that would be built.
They certainly did not conceptualize Las Vegas. Who could? It seems
that a path that says, "We want to preserve the stream flows in
Colorado, in perpetuity," or "We want to give up an entitlement to the
development of water, in perpetuity," is, in essence, retrenching from
the ability to do something with that water, in the future,
consumptively. In fact, it says these are today's conditions, and
these conditions will be in effect forever -- things will never change
and therefore, we are going to give up the entitlement to develop.
It seems to me, this should not be our position. I think that, as was
the position of the state in 1922, we do not need to spend $5,000 per
acre-foot to build 800,000 acre-feet of storage today. That would be
dumb. It would not legally put our water to use under the Compact.
It would be a waste of money. The Compact gives us the ability to
develop our water; to decide as Upper Basin states, as the people of
the State of Colorado, when and how we are going to develop that
water. If we do not do it for fifty years, that is fine, that is our
right. Glenn Saunders used to speak of the Law of the River and to
follow up on Andy Williams point of a social and economic structure,
he said our society is built on a system of laws. If we do not have
laws, we have anarchy. The Compact does, in fact, gi ve us a
foundation. It gives us a future to develop and hopefully, gives us
assurance that we do not have to rush into premature decisions. I
think it would be premature for us to give up our entitlement. On the
other hand, I also think it would be premature for us to decide to
build all kinds of storage reservoirs, and capture water in a bunch
of buckets that we do not have a present use for. I would not like
to see us lock ourselves in.

Anthony Williams: I would just observe that some of the discussion
has ignored the fact that our allocation in the Compact is for
consumptive use. When you talk about using it in the streams as Jeris
did, you are not using much. You can devote the water in the streams
to a use, but our allotment is still available because we have not
consumed it. We may choose never to, but we have not consumed it.
When you talk about the lack of money, what you are talking about is

38