WSP06317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J1J f- 003006 COLORADO WATER June 1996 level of development, theVpper Basin,vses .far less than its "enlitlem"ent as. "long" as runoff"is near normal,. THE LOWER BASIN SUFFERS CHRONIC WATER SHORTAGES BUT BEARS LITTLE DROUGHT RISK By the 1922 compact agreement, the Lower Basin gained the assurance ora stable water supply at the expense of limiting its long-tenn mean withdrawals to less than the amount needed to meet its potential demands. Conversely. the Upper l3asin states gained a long-term limitation on (he Lower Basin's share of the system yield. aT the cost of assuming almost the entire drought risk of the entIre basin. OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR WIN-WIN RULE CHANGES It would be relatively inexpensive for the Upper Basin and Arizona to reduce their long-term claims upon Colorado River water to enable California to meet already-exis[ing demands. It would be similarly inexpensive ifCalifomia agreed to share the burden of future droughl shortages more equally, thus relieving what could be traumatic shonages in Upper Basin slates, particularly Colorado, ONLY MINOR CHANGES CAN BE MADE UNDER EXiSTING RULES The three SSD gaming experiments were conducted within the lim ired context of those changes in interstate water allocation believed to be attainable without changes in statutes or judicial interpretations, The most striking aspect of the outcomes of three drought gaming exercises was their similarity. The players simply were unable to change those outcomes very much through negotiating changes in the operating rules, even though a great deal of communication occurred in both the second and third garnes, and many water transfer deals were successfully struck in the third game, The players seemed to anempt, almost single-mindedly, to maximize Colorado River water deliveries to their respective states within and up to the limits of their compact entitlements, It seems that, with the exception of the equalization rule, the existing operating rules are hard to improve upon, from the limited perspective of coming as close as is possible to fulfilling compact entitlements, RECOMMEND A nONS Study participants recommend that the basin states and the federal government explore the possibility of replacing the 1922 compact with a federal interstate compact that: . Establishes an interstate compact commission, perhaps modeled after that now in place in the Delaware River Basin; . Provides that this commission be served by a technical staff, either within the present Bureau of Reclamation or apart from it, whose mission should be to conduct technical studies for the commission aimed at discovering common interest solutions to drought and other water management problems; . Establishes an advisory committee to the commission composed of representatives of all major water user groups, including agricultural, industrial, and municipal water consumers, hydroelectric power interests, environmental organizations, recreational users, and Indian tribes; '- . Mandates consideration of meeting nonconsumptive water demands and uses on a no less urgent and important basis than that of serving consumptive uses; . Establishes long-tenn allocations of Colorado River water in proportion to current demands, rather than to 1922 allocations; . Provides for proportional sharing of short-tenn (drought) shortages, much as does the current upper basin compact; . Is empowered to encourage and facilitate interstate water banking and marketing; and . . . Is authorized to conduct joint explorations with Mexican entities of possibilities for restoring and maintaining the estusrine ecosystem of the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez), Equitable cost sharing provisions should be an important part of such an innovation.