Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />II. WHY ARE WE HERE? <br /> <br />The Bureau has a growing number of reasons to begin turning <br />the ratchet on Lower Basin uses. <br /> <br />First, the Bureau is faced with the reality that, since <br />1989, the Lower Basin requests have begun to exceed 7.5 mafy. <br />Wi th the Central Arizona Proj ect on line and Nevada' s use <br />growing, California's use in excess of 4.4 mafy (symbolized in <br />part by half of the capacity of the Met' s Colorado River <br />Aqueduct) is in peril. <br /> <br />Second, the Colorado River system has <br />drought. The system has more than 14 maf <br />capacity unfilled. <br /> <br />been impacted by <br />of active storage <br /> <br />Third, the Bureau's authority is being eroded by expanding <br />state regulation of water use. In September the U.S. supreme <br />Court decided not to review the decision of the California court <br />in Imperial Irriqation District v. State Water Resource Board, <br />225 Cal. App. 3d 548 (1990). This lack of review leaves standing <br />the sobering position of the state court, namely that the largest <br />single user of Colorado River water is subject to the reasonable <br />beneficial use standards of the California Constitution (Art. X, <br />~2) and to the jurisdiction of a state water agency. Stop and <br />think about that. After the U.S. Supreme Court announced in the <br />1963 Arizona v. California opinion (373 U.S. 546, at 588) that <br />"state law has no place", there was talk of the Secretary of the <br />Interior being the "Czar of the Lower Colorado". No longer. The <br />Secretary still has considerable jurisdiction to protect and <br />authori ty to assert, however, and probably wants to control <br />where, when and how that authority is shared with or yielded to <br />the states. <br /> <br />Fourth. entitlement holders in the Lower Basin have been <br />complaining about the illegal diverters along the lower River <br />that reduce the supplies available under the water delivery <br />contracts with the Secretary of the Interior. <br /> <br />Fifth, the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of <br />Reclamation have been trying for several years, in the face of <br />some opposition by contractors, to put the Bureau in a position <br />west-wide to "facilitate" the reallocation of reclamation <br />project water through water transfers. Spurred by criticism from <br />the environmental community and urban interests, the Bureau' s <br />self-image has been changing from darn-builder to efficient water <br />manager. Water conservation and reallocation fit the new image. <br />Dennis Underwood's leadership of the Bureau is reflected in the <br />draft regulations. <br /> <br />There undoubtedly are other explanations for why the Bureau <br />is on the move in the Lower Basin, but anyone of the five I have <br /> <br />OE80 <br /> <br />- 3 - <br />