9367 ‎(3)‎

• 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

Since the AOP relates to actions taken each and every month, most people
concentrated on that. The meetings were a real eye-opener for many. Most
participants found the work challenging but rewarding.

Concerning the 5-year review, we are using that same public work group
to assist us in preparing for the next review in four more years. This makes
sense since its members are rapidly gaining a working understanding of the
river management process and their input will be very useful.

Some of the concerns to be addressed include the minimum objective
release from Lake Powell, the equalization provision, Section 602(a) storage
determination, and surplus and shortage declarations. We expect that by the
time the next 5-year review 'begins, we will have the data to deal with
possible changes in the criteria. We may also find that the existing criteria
are serving us very well, that they contain the necessary flexibility to meet
each of our needs, and should be continued.

Let's move to a few critical issues and see how these issues are coming
to bear...and by that perhaps begin to answer some of the questions Lucy asked
me to consider.

First off, let's consider water marketing.

This is a subject that strikes at the very heart of the relationships of
the Upper and Lower Basins.

Some people will make a strong case that there is surplus water in the
Upper Basin that has not been developed. That water, they contend, will never
be developed because of the impacts of application of the Endangered Species
Act, Native American water rights decisions, and various environmental
concerns that may require in-stream flows, as well as economic constraints.

Probably an equal number of people will make the opposite case that the
undeveloped waters still are apportioned under the 1922 Colorado River Compact
and represent the future development opportunities of the Upper Basin states,
and that such waters should be developed as a matter of both need and right.
They argue that simply because of the massive, and often unchecked, growth of
the Lower Basin states, they should not be penalized.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. The value of
understanding the opposite extremes of debate helps us to accept that this is
largely a problem of the states...and is one that can best be settled by the
states. Unless the foundation of western water law is changed, namely that
water is a property of the states, it is fitting that the states be at the
forefront in addressing any concerns relating to water transfers.

Yesterday Carroll Multz, the new Federal Representative and Chairman of
the Upper Colorado River Commission, clearly and correctly indicated that any
interstate water marketing, leasing, or banking proposals will require the
participation, and possibly the approval, of the Federal government. To
refresh your memory, he said that was because any water moving from state to
state must pass through Federal facilities.

4