Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Colorado River <br /> <br />The turbulent Colorado River is one of the most <br />controversial and heavily regulated rivers in the <br />world. From its beginning northwest of Denver, the <br />1 ,450-mile long river and its tributaries pass through <br />parts of seven states: four in the Upper Basin - <br />Colorado. New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming - and <br />three in the Lower Basin - Arizona, California and <br />Nevada. Its water also is shared by several Ameri- <br />can Indian tribes in the basin states and the Repub- <br />lic of Mexico. The Colorado is the only reliable water <br />source for much of the desert Southwest but ranks <br />behind the Sacramento River in tlow. Allocations of <br />the river are based on an average annual supply of <br />15 million acre.feet <br /> <br />The first Californians to tap the Colorado River were <br />settlers in the Palo Verde and Imperial valleys. <br />Although the area was a desert. they recognized its <br />agricultural potential and began building canals to <br />deliver the river water to farmlands. In 1905, the river <br />broke through a series of dikes, flooding a salty basin <br />in the Imperial Valley and forming the Salton Sea. <br />Monumental effort was required to divert the river <br />back into its customary channel, a feat accomplished <br />in 1907. <br /> <br />Continued problems with water supply prompted <br />settlers to form the Imperial Irrigation District (110) in <br />1911. Because the main canal and levees supplying <br />river water were located in Mexico and offered little <br />security, valley pioneers and the district lobbied for <br />an "All-American" canal north of the border. <br /> <br />Dividing use of the Colorado River's waters has been <br />no easy task and has involved compromises, inter- <br />state compacts, a U.S. Supreme Court decree, a <br />treaty with Mexico and federal and state legislation. <br />The interstate 1922 Colorado River Compact divided <br />the watershed into Upper and Lower basins and <br />apportioned the right to use 7.5 million acre-fee per <br />year to each basin. <br /> <br />Subsequently, Congress approved the Boulder <br />Canyon Project Act, dividing the water between the <br />three Lower Basin states and authorizing construc- <br />tion of Hoover and Imperial dams and the <br />All-American Canal. Under this act, California agreed <br />to limit itself to no more than 4.4 million acre-feet of <br />water per year, plus half of any surplus. <br /> <br />In 1924, Los Angeles applied to divert 1.1 million <br />acre-feet annually from the Colorado. Los Angeles <br />and other south coast cities promoted the formation <br />of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern <br />California (MWD) to build an aqueduct and serve as <br />a water wholesale. MWD was created by the Legis- <br /> <br />lature and approved by public vote in 1928. A $220 <br />million bond issue for a 242-mile long Colorado River <br />Aqueduct was passed in 1931 and 10 years later it <br />was completed. The aqueduct was later expanded <br />to its current 1.2 million acre-feet capacity. <br /> <br />By 1952, disagreement erupted over apportionment <br />of the Colorado River in the form of Arizona v. <br />California. Arizona, with its growing population, <br />wanted to ensure its share of the river allocated to it <br />under the 1922 Compact remained intact. Arizona <br />appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to confirm <br />California's right to use only 4.4 million acre-feet of <br />Colorado River water annually, plus half of any water <br />determined surplus (including a state's apportioned <br />but unused water) by the secretary of the Interior. <br />The 1963 ruling confirmed this and entitled Arizona <br />to receive 2.8 million acre-feet, not counting supply <br />from tributary streams. <br /> <br />Southern California, in recent years, has continually <br />used more than its 4.4 million acre-feet share of <br />Colorado River water - up to 5.3 million acre feel in <br />some years. However, in December 1996, Interior <br />Secretary Bruce Babbitt warned California that it <br />could no longer rely on receiving more than its annual <br />allocation because of growing demands in Arizona <br />and Nevada. Babbitt has urged California to develop <br />a conservation plan to avoid continually exceeding <br />its allocation or else be subject to federally imposed <br />water supply cuts. <br /> <br />To date, what has been formed is called the <br />California's Colorado River Water Use Plan, known <br />colloquially as the "4.4 Plan." The plan is intended to <br />reduce California's use ot the Colorado River by <br />approximately 800,000 acre-feet annually. The plan <br />uses a combination of water conservation, water <br />transfers, dry-year fallowing agreements, canal <br />seepage recovery (lining sections of the All-American <br />Canal using $235 million in taxpayer dollars). ground- <br />water banking, special surplus conditions, and <br />possibly. desalination ot drainage water. It also <br />includes a water settlement for the San Luis Rey <br />Indian Tribe. <br /> <br />Along the way have been countless sessions of <br />intense negotiations between stakeholders. A key <br />component of the plan is a proposed long term <br />ag-to-urban water transfer between San Diego <br />County Water Authority and 110 (see page 21). <br />Another key component, the interim surplus criteria, <br />would allow California to continue using surplus <br />water from the river as it ramps down its use. A draft <br />of the plan was released in May 2000, with the final <br />plan slated to go into effect in 2001. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />11 <br />