Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1n order to prott::ct future <:Ieees::; [0 supplies. ~ut the stclg,gering tO~ts arc <br /> <br />l1kely to thwart most projects as .tate !inanc"s in the Upper Basin have <br /> <br />suffered considerably in recent years. State fiscal recovery probably will <br /> <br />depend on a rebound in energy and mineral development or a resurgence in <br /> <br />industrial and population growth. These phenomena could brIng with them not <br /> <br />only increased tax revenues) but also increased private investment in water <br /> <br />projects. <br /> <br />Short of building new water projects, what can the Upper Basin do to <br /> <br />protect its interests? One possibility would be to seek revision of the law <br /> <br />of the river. Clarification of several issues could resolve the most vexing <br /> <br />uncertainties. The Upper Basin states could initiate negotiations with the <br /> <br />Lower Basin states. Or they might seek congressional intervention. The chief <br /> <br />obstacle ta either approach is a lack of bargaining power. California was <br /> <br />able to get Congress to revise the law of the river as a part of the Central <br /> <br />Arizona Project authorization. It won first priority to 4.4 million acre-feet <br /> <br />.'do <br />per year of the Lower Basin share as the price at giving political support to <br />11 <br /> <br />Arizona's needed project. The Upper Basin states exacted a price too: authori- <br /> <br />zation af five additional Upper Basin projects. Perhaps clarification of some <br />22 <br />of the compact ambiguities should have been sought also. <br /> <br />A legal argument that has not yet been tried would reform or void the <br /> <br />Upper Basin's compact obligation because it was based on a mutual mistake of <br /> <br />fact. The intent of the compact was to divide the river's waters equally, <br /> <br />assuming an average annual runoff based on the few, extraordinarily wet years <br /> <br />just before 1922 when the compact was negotiated. It is now known that the <br /> <br />assumptions underlying the compact were wrong. Applying established princi- <br /> <br />pIes of contract law could lead to reformation of the compact to reflect <br /> <br />accurate flow statisticsj if the compact negotiator's approach of dividing <br /> <br />- 9 - <br />