WSP06117

• File Number: 8583
• Description: Rio Grande Decision Support System
• State: CO
• Basin: Rio Grande
• Water Division: 3
• Date: 1/1/1988
• Author: Steven J. Shupe & Jo
• Title: The Upper Rio Grande: A Guide To Decision-Making
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

CUlll1u

49

A PROCESS FOR THE FUTURE

i'l ."

'x;,'

':(

The Red River passes both a molybdenum mine and a fish hatchery as it flows
into the Rio Grande. Balancing such contrasting uses is a key problem for the
future, PHaro BY PAUL WGSOON,

JUST AS IMPORTANT as under-
standing what the issues are is
deciding how they will be dealt
with, In the evolving process of
managing a river system, the laws
and institutions of the present do
not reflect all of the interests and
concerns of constituencies who
lacked influence when those insti-
tutions were created. In what forum
will their concerns now be heard?
What is the process that will meet
the needs of the people of this
watershed for the future?

Throughout our research and inter-
viewing to prepare this handbook,
individuals working on Rio Grande
issues frequently voiced the feeling
that they were remote from the
decision-making process, Many
voices have articulated this feeling
in both words and action.

A farmer in the EI Paso area com-
plained about the quality of irrigation
water, which is delivered near the end
of the system and contains return flow
from upstream irrigators and cities,
Existing state water quality standards
do not prevent harm to agricultural
crops, He feels helpless to make that
change.

An environmental advocate sum-
marized his feelings about the decisional
process with these words: "Those of us
who are interested in upstream
values-recreation, riparian habitat,
fishing, wilderness, acequia farming-
must simply recognize that we are not
part of the system for managing the Rio
Grande. We are on the outside looking
in."

The governor of an Indian Pueblo
summarized feelings of errlusion from a
decision about water management:
"They think we are some alien sitting
in their midst, They pump sewage into
the river $0 we can't use it for religious
purposes,"

These reactions testify to a per-
ceived need on the part of many
constituencies to have their inter-
ests taken into account more
directly in decision-making about
the Rio Grande. What are some of
the ways these groups can enter the
process now, why is this not
enough and what examples exist to
suggest different models for
decision-making?

The Rio Grande Compact Commis-
sion is the foremost authority in
decision-making about the river.

Federal statutes sometimes allow
the Rio Grande Compact Commis-
sion to alter operating criteria for
water projects so long as these deci-
sions do not violate terms of the
compact. That means administra-
tive discretion may exist to create
temporary or innovative arrange-
ments regarding the flow regime in
the system to resolve particular
problems. However, there is no pro-
vision in this process for a well-
defined role for either the public or
for other governmental agencies.
That is because the commission
was never designed as a policy-
making body for the upper basin
but rather as a mechanism for
implementing the compact. Its
goals are no broader than those of
the compact and relate principally
to preserving the balance of water
allocation among the three states.

The Bureau of Reclamation and the
Army Corps of Engineers are the
other major federal agencies
responsible for river management,
and both operate under statutes
that require public involvement
under certain circumstances. The
most elaborate process prescribed
by statute is the National Environ-
mental Policy Act process, but this