<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 />
|