Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4 <br /> <br />The treaty was negotiated at the height of World War II, and the water <br />was a tradeoff for the right of the United States to station troops in <br />northern Mexico to protect the defense industries of Southern California <br />from a perceived threat of invasion. No consideration was taken of the fact <br />that no water for that purpose had been set aside in the Colorado River <br />Compact of 1922. <br /> <br />Until now, enough water, has run surplus across the border annually that <br />the question of which sub-basin, or state, would have to relinquish its <br />entitlements under the compact hasn't been an issue. But, as The Denver <br />Post's editorial pointed out: <br /> <br />"As long as there is a surplus, how Mexico receives the allocation isn't <br />important. But by 1986, when the Central Arizona Proj ect is finished, a <br />lawsuit is likely to ensue. Which basin should give up its water to meet <br />Mexico's demands? Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico will insist that <br />the Lower Basin - Arizona and California - should assume it." <br /> <br />There are Colorado water experts - and fonner 1] .S. Senator Gordon L. Allott <br />is one of them - who believe that, when the day of reckoning arrives, <br />Colorado had better have put all of its entitlements to work, or else we <br />will be the losers in litigation such as that predicted by The Denver Post <br />editorial. <br /> <br />As Senator Allott pointed out at the 1979 Colorado- Water Convention: <br /> <br />''Regardless what is specified by river compact and law, I cannot conceive <br />of a future Supreme Court of the United States which would dry up California <br />houses so that Colorado belatedly could put its water to work." <br /> <br />Still another danger is posed by the burgeoning energy industry in Colorado. <br />The process and domestic water needs of a major shale oil industry will <br />be immense - probably not the million-plus' acr~feet per year predicted <br />by E=n's synthetic.fuels,plarmers, but nonetheless a dramatic additional <br />BUrden to be met bY Federal, State afid/or local resources. <br /> <br />S6frie . of the needed water tiS> daubt Will be plirchased fr6iii agr:iCliittifai users, <br />but displacement of agricultural production by shale oil production is <br />fraught with problems. Additional reservoir storage to capture the annual <br />surplus on the Colorado River - variously estimated at 700,000 to 1 million <br />acre-feet per year, on the average - is the better answer. But, if those <br />reserVoirs aren't evert under constructi6n when the predicted water crunch <br />hits in 1986 and subsequent years, the only source of dependable water might <br />be irrigation water. <br /> <br />3. What Should Be Done? <br /> <br />" , <br />d ~~ . <br /> <br />Water for Colorado recommends pursuit of a Colo:rado Water Action Agenda, <br />to sharply accelerate decision~ald.ng on a number of fronts. That agenda <br />would turn some of the broad generalities of th~ 1979 C?10ra,~6Wat~r ;l,qon7' , ':, <br />ventior: into specific actions..' Some, of thpse a?:t~on!, a~~, :v:f,p,r.o?~ss:'i~d '1,' ,'~., " . <br />need SJ.TIlply to be speeded ~p. ; Others.; h!iv:e beep h!'c! up by pol:Lt:Lcal;;st,al6-' "{: i' I <br />matei' oz:' inertia, and neeg tp. be resur;'ec:~~d!.m9!ill':ot2~J:.:sA~~~ .haV:~':JIE:i1~':r'1;i",. ,.', <br />, .' ,,' -'. ,,,,:;~"'''j..."''-ml;;:1Il{j;''''''_'"'','''''"'h''1''''''''''';'tJ;'$~'',,,."',,"1~i<c~'.","~~' <br />~',,'" ~"~".'r .:y ~ .,~'''' -\.l...."~.r.w;:~~.,:, ,":r'_.-~"""-'<J':1"V"""~-'-~~'~'li_~.e1u.-1",,!"" -40.1<(, ~"!~, <br />. . 'l', J- '\Z' ...-~ ,~.-..". '""S1.,..",.~...,.;o'..;:.,\ .,,:.~1',.~t;...'tvJ;;,~,_7~.', _ . "I~"">*";~:.t '" .....,J,. "~~'l'f'!" <br />"-t."" ~ ~'" .~'I' ~.' .....~:;:.~-~~-;r.:r..:_. '::;"r.:1f~t.;.}~tt(~;~l~.'- - ,d~ ,~,~~;;,..~ ".:>' . ,. ' <br />