WSP00481 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

co "n 00 ,-.j ,.:~ \.:..) q~ ii."R",,_..'n,*~$OI"n'" "W" , ,,' , ',,", ',','" "" '", "',, '",,', """',,, ',',,', .,".~~Jf)ltsJll-,f1l!Ws ,,>l!hqot..s, 1997 - ^>" ,- . ~ ="'....--,.., "'i',,,_o_'" '''''',~''~">~;__O '~'--';'-"'- '^"-"'''~-',~'.,A.'/o.,''ti>'''''i~~?~~1@;1i[~:r}$f~~j\_hmJb1r~ SCIENCE Be ENVIRONMENT \ll{h.:r1li~ -:'"-" ,~~, ~ '" , '~\~~l .' .~ George Douglas. Assistant City Editor. 892-2743 - H :_~~ Bill seen as savior of state's water s California could use more of its own water, less of Colorado's under measure sent to Bush oe n- Ie Df In By Bill Scanlon News Environmental Writer The water bill approved by the U.S. Senate Thursday woUld kill the San Luis Valley water project and slake California's thirst for Colorado's water, says environ. mental scientist Dan Luecke, The bill, which passed the Sen. ate 83~8, has deeper consequences for Colorado than any in the recent past, water experts say. It awaits President Bush's signature or veto. Colorado Democrat Tim Wirth voted for the bill. Republi- can Hank Brown voted against it. An amendment by Wirth would require federal approval before American Water Development , Inc. coUld pump water out of a huge aquifer in the San Luis Valley in southern Colorado and pipe it to metro Denver. It requires that the secretary of the interior fJrst de- termine thalthere is no damage to wildlife, the aquifer or the Great Sand Dunes National Monument. "It signs the death warrant of the A WDl project," said Luecke, of the Environmental Defense Fund in BoUlder. "It would make wetlands an issue, and the project woUld dry up a lot of wetlands. I don't think it coUld be built under those kinds of conditions," Proponents of the A WDl plan say it could get water to Denver that otherwise evaporates, and help the depressed San Luis econ- omy. Opponents believe the spigot wouldn't be turned off until the San Luis Valley turns to desert. If the water bill becomes law, California won't need to take as much Colorado River water from " I ld , Rocky Mountain News file photo This California farmer and others like him could sell their irriga- tion water to cities if a bill passed ThurSday is signed into law. New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, observers say, It would. for the first time, give California farmers the right to sell their water to cities, The price of agriculture water would increase as the farmers' 50. year leases come up for renewal. That would spur interest in selling to southern California cities, or at least dampen enthusiasm for growing :;uch \vater.intensi\'e crops as rice ,md cotton, say sup~ porters of the bill. The cities in :;outhern California could start getting more of their water from the San Joaquin River, less from the Colorado River, Luecke says. And that would mean Colorado wouldn't be under pressure to build reservoirs to capture the Colorado River water that flows to California, he says. Colorado, with 3,3 million peo~ pIe, rloesn't need all of its share of the Colorado River vet. The G\)lden State, with some 30 million people, is using about BOO,OOO acre-reet of water to which it's not entitled under the Color;jdo Ri\"er Compact. With rhe prf'~:;ure off, :'lay envi- (onment;jli;';h, Colorado could grow at its own pace, not at a pace dictated by California and second- ed by eager Colorado developers. The water bill has plenty of foes, including farmers in Colorado, Al- though it initially would ease pres- sure on agricUlture here, its prece. dent could make it easier for Colorado to raise the price of agri- culture water, say farmers. They already have the right to sell water to Colorado cities. ' But Luecke says the bill majies sense because it reflects changing needs and changing water values. California farmers now arojay- ing some $3 an acre-foot for wa- , ter. The cost of new municipal water in Colorado or California is projected to be as much as $5,000 or more per acre~foot, say metro- area water managers. .:' _ - '\~~"ia "There will be changes inirpga.- tion efficiency" if the bill becOmes law, Luecke said. "Also, thet:~ is land there that ought to be retfr~d. "There just won't be that politi- cal pressure to develop storage that just isn't necessary- 'that is protective rather than sensible," he said. California farmers woUld get a certain amount of the water at the same low price, but woUld pay an escalating rate after that. A por- tion of each sale at tlie escalated prices woUld go into a fund to repair the water system, purchase wetlands and help fish and wildlife, under the bill's provislons, Proponents say the formula coUld reduce water to farmers ,by 10% or 15%, giving an extra 650,000 to 900,000 acre-feet each year to southern California cities. That's about equal to the annual surplus they now take from the Colorado River. "r don't see how Bush can veto the thing," because it has so many provisions that help a Jot of states. Luecke said.