Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001556 <br /> <br />-g.ft:~~ <br />.~.~,.,. <br /> <br />. -I, <br /> <br />.t~~ <br /> <br />VII. Conclusion. <br /> <br />!!& <br /> <br />This summary of evolving federal policies and regional <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />realities demonstrates first a federal biilstoward maximizing <br />depletions in the Lower Basin and minimizing deple-tions in the <br /> <br />Upper Basin. Moreover, wholly apart from these evolving federal <br /> <br />policies, are certain regional, realities. Those realities, as <br /> <br />demonstrated in this paper, reveal that Lower Basin, urban areas <br /> <br />have a per capita income and wealth which far exceeds that of the <br /> <br />largely rural and underpopulated areas of the Upper Basin which <br /> <br />contribute water to the Colorado River. <br /> <br />With the exception of <br /> <br />isolated and highly wealthy places such as Aspen and Telluride, <br /> <br />there exist in the Upper Basin states in these water supply areas <br /> <br />very limited economic prospects. Irrigation will not substantially <br /> <br />increase and recreation growth will only benefit isolated <br /> <br />communities. Indeed, beyond the ski towns and tourist attractions, <br /> <br />there exists very little opportunity for sustained economic growth, <br /> <br />population increase, or future prosperity.' <br /> <br />Interstate water <br /> <br />marketing represents, _therefore, an important econom~c opportunity. <br />If properly structured, such water transactions can restore the <br /> <br />promise and commitments giving rise to the 1922 ColoJ;ado River <br /> <br />Compact -- namely, that each Basin and the federal government <br /> <br />pledge to secure the equitable development of the waters of the <br /> <br />Colorado River. <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />~ ,,; <br />