My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06737
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06737
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:24:09 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:50:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.650
Description
Colorado River Operations
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1997
Author
CWCB
Title
Water Marketing
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />DAILY SENTINEL OP-ED <br />James S. Lochhead <br />Executive Director <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />Recently, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announced that the Bureau of Reclamation <br />would soon issue draft regulations allowing interstate water banking in the Lower <br />Colorado River Basin. This proposal -- together with some inaccurate press reports -- <br />prompted some editorial writers to propose that Colorado sell or lease its unused <br />entitlement to California or Nevada. In essence, their argument is that the lower states <br />should pay for what they are now getting for free. <br /> <br />At first blush, the argument is appealing. We could use the revenue for roads or schools, <br />and politically powerful California might steal our water anyway. <br /> <br />Fortunately, the Daily Sentinel got it right. The Sentinel saw this as a bad idea. It is akin <br />to the kids selling off the family jewels to throw a party. In the long term, it would <br />damage our economy and our environment. <br /> <br />In 1922, a shrewd and principled Colorado lawyer named Delph Carpenter led the <br />negotiation of the Colorado River Compact. This was an interstate agreement between <br />the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower Basin <br />(Arizona, California and Nevada). Carpenter was afraid that the faster growing Lower <br />Basin, principally California, would develop the River and claim its water before the <br />Upper Basin even had the opportunity. So he sought protection under the Compact. <br /> <br />The essence of the agreement was that the Upper Basin would not allow the flow of the <br />Colorado River to drop below a specified amount -- 75 million acre feet over a running <br />ten year average. In exchange, the Lower Basin agreed that the Upper Basin would have <br />the right -- forever -- to develop whatever flow remained. In the meantime, the Compact <br />requires Colorado and the other Upper Basin states to allow water we don't need to flow <br />to the Lower Basin until we need it. <br /> <br />This is the genius of the Compact. By requiring Colorado and its neighbors to send <br />unused water to the Lower Basin at no cost for their immediate use, it continually <br />reaffirms Colorado's right to claim that water in the future. <br /> <br />Ifwe now try to extract money for that unused water -- even on a temporary lease basis -- <br />~ will be breaking the Compact that has stood for 75 years. We cannot sell or lease <br />Colorado's share without losing the protections afforded by the Compact, including the <br />protected right to use more of our share in the future. In fact, we would undoubtedly be <br />forced to renegotiate the Compact. Is it worth giving up the benefits of the Compact -- <br />selling the family jewels -- for some short-term profit? Consider the many benefits the <br />Compact has provided Colorado for the last 75 years: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.