WSPP00066 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i 4 The treaty was negotiated at the height of World War II, and the water was a tradeoff for the right of the United States to ,station troops in northern Mexico to protect the defense industries of Southern California from a perceived threat of invasion. No consideration was taken of the fact that no water for that purpose had been set aside in the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Until now, enough water has run surplus across the border annually that the question of which sub-basin, or state, would have to relinquish its entitlements under the compact hasn't been an issue. But, as The Denver Post's editorial pointed out: "As long as there is a surplus, how Mexico receives the allocation isn't :important. But by 1986, when the Central Arizona Proj ect is finished" a lawsuit is likely to ensue. Which basin should give up its water to meet Mexico's demands? Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico will insist that the Lower Basin - Arizona and California - should assume it." There are Colorado water experts - and fonner U.S. Senator Gordon L. Allott is one of them - who believe that, when the day of reckoning arrives, Colorado had better have put all of its entitlements to work, or else we I will be the losers in litigation such as that predicted by The Denver Post editorial. ' ", As Senator Allott pointed out at the 1979 Colorado- Water Convention: "Regardless what is specified by river compact and law, I cannot conceive of a future Supreme Court of the United States which would dry up California houses so that Colorado belatedly could put its water to work." Still another danger is posed by the burgeoning energy industry in Colorado. The process and domestic water needs of a major shale oil industry will be immense __ probably not the million-plus acre-feet per year predicted by Exxon's synthetic fuels planners, but nonetheless a dramatic additional burden to be met by Federal, State and/or local resources. Some of the needed water no doubt will be purchased from agricultural users, but displacement of agricultural production by shale oil production is , fraught with problems. Additional reservoir storage to capture the annual surplus on the Colorado River -- variously est:imated .t 700,000 to 1 million acre>-feet per year, on tli.e average - is the better answer. But, if those reservoirs aren't even under construction when the predicted water crunch hits in 1986 and subsequent years, the only source of dependable water might be irrigation water. 3. What Should Be Done? Water for Colorado recommends pursuit of a Colorado Water Action Agenda, to sharply accelerate decision-making on a number of fronts. That agenda would turn some of the broad generalities of the 1979 Colorado Water Con- vention into specific actions. Some of those actions are in process, and need s:imply to be speeded up. Others have been tied up by political stale>- mate, or inertia, and need to be resurrected. Still others never have