Western Water Jan/Feb 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Without continued leadership to find and implement consensus -based solutions on the Colorado River — basinwide litigation, which we have successfully avoided since 1922, looms as a significant threat. Whatever your position or perspective, one thing is clear: the ultimate choice between negotiation and litigation rests with this generation of water leaders." For today's negotiators, it was a vastly different scenario than in 1922 when representatives of the seven states crafted the historic Colorado River Compact, dividing the water between the Upper and Lower basins. Then, the state representatives believed the river had more than enough runoff to meet demand. Stakeholders today know that the river's average flows will not meet future demands given the Basin's continued development. The drought that began in 2000 heightened their concerns. "Not only was the period that coincided with or preceded the development of the Compact an extraordinarily wet period, it was probably the wettest period in at least the past 500 years," said Stephan Gray, of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Desert Laboratory, speaking at a September Colorado River symposium sponsored by the Water Education Foundation. "When the compact was developed, water that was not likely to be available on a consistent basis was divided up among the basin states." The chronic overallocation of the river played a big role in development of the proposed seven -state framework as negotiators included a suite of programs intended to increase water supplies for the states' "mutual ben- efit." The Upper Basin states view these plans and the Lower Basin shortage guidelines /drought reservoir management as one package. "Clearly these other things have to happen on the river if we're going to continue to get along," Ostler said. In their Feb. 3 letter, the states pledged to move forward with this package of actions while Reclamation prepares the EIS. The actions include "implementation of a demonstration program for extraordinary conserva- tion in 2006, system efficiency projects, preparation of an action plan for augmentation of the system through weather modification, execu- tion of a Memorandum of Understand- ing for preparing a Lower Division states' interstate drought management plan, development of forbearance agreements among the Lower Division states, and the initiation of a study for long -term augmentation of Colorado River system water supplies." While it is the future management of the system that is the focus of the seven -state preliminary proposal and Reclamation's EIS, the past continues to guide the discussions. Negotiators had to consider the legal and political ramifications of their actions and recommendations as they worked to protect water rights. State leaders say that their recommendations can be implemented without modifications of the Long Range Operating Criteria or other elements of the Law of the River. Political and legal dilemmas aside, the Colorado River Basin's future climate and hydrology will play a role in implementation of these changes. Data show that between 1950 and 2003, average winter temperatures in the Colorado River Basin increased by approximately 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit; with future changes estimated to be an additional 2 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. What the effects will be upon the basin and its water resources and storage is uncertain, although some recent studies suggest that more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow. Beyond any potential climate change, Gray said, "The simple fact is that if you have more people and more taps in the western United States, you'll have more demand. No matter how you stack it, the rules of the game are changing." Peter Culp, formerly the attorney for programs at the Sonoran Institute, agreed. "I think the current drought WESTERN WATER