Upper Colorado River Commission Meetings 2005 Itinery

Home Browse Search

Perhaps if we looked at how we would really act; it may help us craft operational policies for such times that mirror our real nature. I'm confident that with that kind of a backdrop, we can successfully manage the Colorado River, by working together.4 As I told the audience at Water Users here in Las Vegas last December: "Reclamation will do its part — planning for the worst, and hoping for the best. But hope is not a strategy that we will use to deal with the drought in the basin." Now, based upon Secretary Norton's direction, Reclamation is poised and eager to work with all the interests in the Basin over the next couple of years to add another chapter of success to the history of the Colorado River. Among the many bases for my conclusion that we will collectively find a way to meet the challenges ahead are statements made at this conference by influential advisors from both the Upper and Lower Basins. For example, consider the following observations: "The questions inherent in Colorado River operations and the allocations of water between states are numerous, and the consequences of failure in operating the River appropriately are substantial. It is easy for states to question the role of the federal government, and for states to argue among themselves over their allocations. Yet, ultimately, the appropriate question may properly be whether the River is operated for the benefit of all, given current and projected circumstances. Clearly the initial allocations of the River were made at a time when water was abundant, and without the benefit of the massive storage development of the system. Given the new realities - a probable significantly less water supply, substantial development, urban, recreational and environmental demands - perhaps now is the time of the states of the Colorado River to re -think the fundamental operation of the River, and re- assess whether the existing operating rules are appropriate for these new realities. James S. Lochhead, Federal -State Relations and Impending Questions on the River, CLE Conf. Materials, Law of the Colorado River, at 134 -9 (2005). "...[T)oday, with a few years of drought experience behind us, it does appear that our existing management regime works better in times of plenty than in times of scarcity. With scarcity being touted, through tree ring studies, to be our future, perhaps it is time to think about change. Thinking about change and actually implementing it, however, are also very different concepts..... Nevertheless, it is my prediction that the [current basin] talks will not only proceed, but will proceed in earnest over the course of the next year. The Upper Basin needs to know how much water it has to support future growth. The Lower Basin needs to know how much water the Upper Basin must contribute to the Mexican Treaty obligation. The Bureau of Reclamation needs to know how to ran the reservoirs without being constantly threatened with a lawsuit from one sector or another. While some of these questions might be answered through litigation, it is obviously better to work them out cooperatively. Negotiated compromises offer a range of remedies far beyond the power of the courts." Michael J. Pearce, Perspectives on the River., Keeping Up with the Changes, CLE Conf. Materials, Law of the Colorado River, at I -1 to 1 -2 (2005). Prepared Remarks - Keynote Address 11 Law of the Colorado River