WSPP00080 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r -- - - ;'7 olorado's Water Future r J - " . II YOU"'C Been 'Vonclcring Almu! Da)'.To.Da)' ll/,'.(ullincs On OUl' Intra-State Fight Orcr \Vater, Here Are The Answers . .- By JEAN S. BREITENSTEIN", AHorney for the Colorado Slate Water Conservolllion Board Editor's Note: This article pre. :<;C'nts most of the speech made by Mr, Breitenstein lit the annual mcetinll oE the Colorado Allricul- tural PlllnninA Committee in Den- \'er on March 8. COLORADO'S sole remaining un- used water resource is found in the basin of the Colorado Rivl'f and ils tributaries. It is to this that Colorado must look for the future. The Use of Colorado River water is 'to"crned by the sc,'en-state Colo- YJo River Comp:lct of 1922 and the .tV{'-statc .upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 19-13. The! 1922 compact divided the bendicial con- sumptive use of water between the Lower Bnsin and the Upper Basin. The Lowt'r Basin was given toe right to consume bendicilllly 8,500,000 acre fcct of wa.ter a )'ear and the Upper nasir} 7,500,000 II('re fpet. An)' sur- plus was made subject to division after 1963 when nurl ir eithcr basin is con!luming the shClre allotted to it, The states or Colorudo, Utah, New M.-xico find Wyoming agn:ed not to deplete the stream f low s at Lee F,'rry CAriz,), the dividiug point be- tWt'ef! the t.....o basins, below 75.000,- 000 IIcn' feet in any 10-yellr perind. The 1922 compact made no allot- mcnt of Wa\N to flny state. Wafer Righls Limited Under the tNIIlS of the Upper Basin t'ompact of 19018, Colorado was aliottoo approximately 51 % or the apportionm('nt madc to the Uppt-r Basin b)' the 19:.!2 compact. In terms (If water this menns that Colorado ha~ the right to make bcnf"ficla] con- sumptive use of 3,855,000 acre f{'et of Colorado River water annuallv plus some underined and uncertaf~ quantity of salvan(' water. However, the ri,l!ht to u~e this quantity of water is conditioned uflon the delivery at Lpc Jo't!rrj' o( the w~lt('r required to be delivered thN(' by the 1922 com. 1acl. An analysis ot Colorado River flows disclost's that unless there is hold-over storage in the Upper Ba. sin to equate the Lee Ferry flows, the benl'rici:11 con~umpti"e use of _ water in thllt (Upper) basin cannot ex!:('ed nn annual average of about 4,500.000 MCre reet. To permit the consumptive ust! of the rull 7,500,000 acre reet allotted to the Upper Basin a total r('sc(\'uir cap;.city of some. wh.'re betWl,-er\ 20,000,000 Iicre r,'et and 48,000,000 acre feet must be plovided to regulate the river. Enf:ine(>f'!l estimate present uses in the natura] basin in Colorado as ap- proximately 1,000,000 acre fecI. Prt's- t2'nt transmtltlntain diversions to the Ellst Slope take annually &bout 100,- 000 nere (eet. Additional diversions \0 the East Slope b)' the Colorado. Big Thompson project and by all ex- tension of the existing Denver trans- mountaindh'ersions and or a few other such diwrslrms will bring the figure for East Slope diversions to a total of about 500.000 acre feet. If you assume adequate storage to permit the use or the rull allotment to which Colorado is entitled and chargc Colorado with its share or the evaporation losses from such resCfvoif!l, there remains a quantity of water which has been variously estimated lrom about 1,000,000 acre feet to about 2,300,000 acre leet avail. able ror future apPlopriation and use in Colorado, The development of the Use or this water is the problem now confronting Colorado, Bills for the authorization of two major water projects arreetin~ Colo- rado are now belore Congress. One of these relates to the Frying Pan- Arkansas project which will divert about 70,000 acre feet annually from the headwaters of the Frying Pan River, convey that water through the Continental Divide in a tunnel and discharge it into the Arkansas River for agrieultura], industrial and mu- nicipal uses in the basin of that stream. !hcre is lillle, if any, con. troVers)' In Colorado 8S to this proj- ('ct. A set or operating principles de- signed to protect in-basin uses was devised by a Policy and Review committce after a prolonged period at study. The other is the Colorado River Storaneo Project. The gigantic plan ror this project calls lor the con- struction of some 10 major dams on the Colora~o River and its tribu- o A H f;:~~ u T A. A R ,..................,..."...".. taries which will store some 48,000,. 000 acrc reet of \\'ater and generate over 9 billion kilowatt hours of t']ec_ trica] ener.I~")' annuaUy, The power revenues will be used not only 10 finanee the major dams but also what are known as- participating projects, that is agricultural and mu. nicipal projects which in and or themselvcs do not have economic feasibility bceausc of high eonstruc- tion costs. The project as now planned will cost over $1 billion which will be repayable to the Unit- ed States with interest which will go into the treasury as true compen- sation for the advancement of the money, i In its supplemental report on the Colorado River Storage Projt'ct, the Bureau of Reclamation has rt'l.:om- m{'nded ror fir!>t eonstructioll the G]en Canyon and Echo Park dams and a number ot so-called partici- patillR projects, For example, there is the Seedskadce project lor Wy- oming which will cost $23.000,000, and the initial phase or the Central Utah prajl'Ct whieh will cost ovcr $200,000,000. Conditional authoriza- tion is sought ror the Shiproek proJ- ect in New Mexit'O which will also cost over $200,000.000, There are recommended for construction in Colorado five smull participating projects, the Florida, Pine River Ex- temion., Silt, Smith Fork, and Pao. UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN ..e ... .. "'..... ..."...,... o M N G gt..,t~ . o 0 MEXICO ~UT"ft , / ,...", Th. Colorado River 510"11' P.oJ"el, m.'or d.m.. (Map by Colorado W.ln Co".......Uon Boa.d.) PAGE 5 APRil 10, 1954 RANCHER & fARMER - Mr. B..lIen.l.ln nia. the total costs of which are "bout the same as that of the Seeds- kadee projl'et in Wyoming. Thus un- der the recommendatiuns of the Bu. reau or Reclamation, Colorado, which produces ovt'r 70% of the water flowing past Lec Ferry and whlch is entitled to the use of over 51 % of the water allotted to the Upper Basin, is virtually forgotten, This should be at vital concern to those in Colorado who life interested in the future welfare or our state. What are the reasons for this? They should be well known by now. The first is the most unfortunlite controversy bdween the East S]Opll and the West Slope, The second is the lack of any ovvr-all plan ror West Slope developm('nt, The East Slorx.-West Slope con- flict has been brought to n climax by the Denver demand that its R]ue River diversion projl.'ct be included within the hill to authori7.1' the Colo~ rada Hivt'r Storage project, The Wellt Slope oppositi(JIl to this request is ,<"f 5uch a nature that the state ha!l id!'tu'llly become divided into t....'o warring camps. In considcring this matter it should bl' reeogniu-d that as early as !882 the Colorado Supreme COUl't upheld the legality of transmountnin diver_ lIions ill the ramou5 (,R~e of Coffin vs. Left Hand Ditrh Company, At !past one subfltantial diversion of Colorado River wnt('r for Ellst Slope u."e - I r('rer to the Grand Riv.'r Ditch - antl!dates the turn ot the century, Well Slope Desire. Clowth While such a water use is ...ntirely legal, it must be recoJ:nized that tht'r~ is II natural s)'mpathy for in- basin uses, On the (,llst side or the mountains the p.-'ople must rt'cog- nize that the llmLitions or thl' West Slope to f:row both in industry lind agriculture result in ~n Intensc de- sire to retain and use the wat..rs of the Colorado Riv(.'r system within the natural basin. No one C<'lll cen- sure any area for making l'very er- rort to retain a natural (('soun'c fur the b...n(.fit of thnt :lrea. An understandable objection to transmountain diveuit!ns 15 the claim thrlt the in-basin area is entitled to a water supply which will permit it to develop its rull potenlial at no increase in cost, The West Slope people have with ability Rnd vigor resisted transmountain divernions ror !nany years, Their basic idea has been that there should bt. no mllre federally financed transmountain Ji. vt-'nion projects until Ii study or lhe West Slope needs and potl?ntials has becn completed, The difficulty is that the West Slopl"' str...nuously ('on. lCONTINtJ~D ON PAGF. 29) - . 0003