BOARD01417

• Board Meeting Date: 5/24/1999
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Upper Colorado River Commissioner's Report - Historic and Continuing Interest of the Upper Basin in Preserving Secure Interstate Allocations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

I

In response, the Secretary pulled out of the quantification negotiations, stating, "It appears to me _
that the parties, having come so close to agreement in January, are now drifting apart. I truly hope this ..
does not signal the onset of yet another western water war.""

With these latest shots, the up and down process of finding an accommodation among water
agencies on the Colorado River continues. As ofthe writing of this paper (April 1999), the Secretary has
announced he will seek comment on whether and how he should implement surplus and shortage criteria
or guidelines for the operation of Colorado River reservoirs. Surely, in the absence of the California 4.4
Plan, the six states will take a very conservative approach to what any criteria might do, and will assert
that any criteria should be operated only under a spill avoidance strategy, holding water as high in the .
system for as long as possible to allow for anticipated drought conditions. Clearly, such a strategy puts
more risk on California that surplus conditions will not be declared, and Met diversions may be reduced.

The Secretary has also entered back into the quantification negotiations between Met, lID and
Coachella, in an effort to get the 4.4 Plan process back on track. Hopefully, he and Arizona will be able
to resolve the issues surrounding the CAP litigation in a way that will allow the Department of the
Interior to move forward with the Lower Basin banking regulations. This will allow some relief for
Nevada.

Conclusion

The interest of the Upper Division states, from the negotiation of the Colorado River Compact to
the present day, has been to achieve as much certainty and security as possible in the use and allocation _
ofthe waters ofthe Colorado River. The Colorado River Compact assured the Upper Basin the right to ..
develop a specified share of the River in perpetuity. The Compact eliminated the operation of the prior
appropriation doctrine between the Basins, and prevented interbasin water marketing. The Compact
preserved state autonomy in the management, use and regulation of water supplies. It provided a
foundation for avoiding interstate litigation, and for the comprehensive development of the River that
followed. The Decree in Arizona v. California, the California Self-Limitation Act, the 1968 Colorado
River Basin Planning Act and the Operating Criteria promulgated thereunder all build upon the Compact
to establish clear operating rules, allocations, and a rule of law upon which reliance and economies have
been built in the Upper Basin.

Despite the current uncertainty as to whether California agencies will be able to agree on how
California will meet its obligation to live within its allocated share of the River, the state of California
has consistently acknowledged its obligation to do so. It must do so. With or without a 4.4 Plan and
interim surplus criteria that would allow California a "soft landing," the Upper Division states will rely
on the legal framework that requires California to reduce its uses to 4.4 rnati'yr.

At the same time, the Law of the River is flexible enough that by agreement among the states the
reduction by California of its uses can be achieved with a minimum of pain, and the water needs of
Nevada can be satisfied. Resolution of these issues could extend security of operations on the River for
the next several decades. And this end - security - is the result sought by the Upper Basin.

"Letter from Secretary Babbitt to Phillip J. Pace, February 10, 1999. "Interior Secretary Pulls Out of
Water Dispute," Los Angeles Times, February II, 1999.

e