|
<br />foJO p~
<br />
<br />A potential gift from the federal governll1ent
<br />
<br />Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
<br />caused a minor upmar last week
<br />with his announcement that the fed-
<br />eral rules will be ch~nged nelt year
<br />. to allow interstate sales (If Colorado Riv-
<br />~er water.
<br />-- At the moment, though, the proposal
<br />affects only the ri\'er's lower basin - es-
<br />sentially California, Arizona and Nevada.
<br />The idea is tb.at if Ariwna is s.taring wa-
<br />ter Ulat it can't use, and a booming city
<br />: l~e Las Vegas is willing to pay lor that
<br />water, then go ahead and make a deal.
<br />; ~Why would any stale slore water that It
<br />can't use? To make sure nobody else can
<br />,use it, of course. 10 theory, the seven
<br />: states along the Colorado have appor.
<br />liDned the river, so that each is entitlerl to
<br />,~certain share.
<br />: ;But in practice, suppose California
<br />S~arted using Arizona's share over the
<br />years, since this water was just flowing
<br />~own the river anyway. Then Arizona
<br />fInds a "beneficial use" lor this water,
<br />and goes to withdraw it. California won't
<br />lii.e that, and Califqmia has 8 huge con.
<br />.Jl'essional delegation that can rewrite
<br />
<br />federal law to suit
<br />itself.
<br />So, to make sure
<br />the water will be
<br />there if it needs it,
<br />Anl.ona will stme it,
<br />even though it.
<br />doesn't have any use
<br />for it, because Art-
<br />l.ona doesn't trust
<br />California, even
<br />thougb California
<br />agreed, in the fa-
<br />mous COloraoo Riv.
<br />er Compact oC 1922,
<br />to limit its use of the
<br />Colorado River.
<br />This is also Why generations of Colora-
<br />do politicians have argued that we need
<br />more storage reservoirs. The Western
<br />Slope permits 6.8 million acre. feet to
<br />flow out in an average year, but Colorado
<br />is obliged to allow only 5.6 million acre-
<br />feet run downstream.
<br />So there are 1.2 million acre-feet that
<br />in thlf,ory belong to Colorado, but in prac-
<br />tice flows to California, and might stay in
<br />
<br />
<br />ED
<br />QUILLEN
<br />
<br />California's clutcheS' if Colorado doesn't
<br />come up with.ll way to use it soon. As the
<br />saying goes, "Use it or lose it."
<br />Under the current rules, Colorado has
<br />two choices:
<br />~ Risk. losing the water to 8 down-
<br />stream state.
<br />~ Build even more dams, diversions,
<br />tunnels, canals, conduits, ditches, etc. to
<br />put the water to ~e.
<br />What "use," though?
<br />Agriculture bas seldom paid well
<br />enough to buy all that water develop.
<br />ment, and the great federal subsi9Y ma-
<br />chine has turned toward more pres!iing
<br />matters, such as militarizing small-town
<br />police departments. Water-intensive in.
<br />dustries tend to locate elsewhere, and so
<br />the only realistic use for the water is
<br />more sprawl along the Front Range.
<br />The 1.2 million acre-feet now heing al.
<br />lowed to escape is enough water for about
<br />5 million people, more than douhle our
<br />current population.
<br />But suppose Secretary Babbitt's pro-
<br />~posal were expanded to allow for inter-
<br />state water sales, so that Colorado got a
<br />
<br />third option for that 1.2 million acre-feet.
<br />Rather than develop or lose the water,
<br />Colorado could sell it to a downstream
<br />entity. And the sale should not involve a
<br />permanent transfer of water rigbts, hut
<br />the sale of a certain quantity oC water
<br />each year under a long-term contract.
<br />Let Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San
<br />Diego get into a spirited bidding war, and
<br />we might well see as mucll as $1,000 per
<br />acre-foot per year.
<br />That works out to $1.2 billion' a year.
<br />Who'd get the money? Our state constitu-
<br />tion clearly states that "the water of ev-
<br />ery natural stream. . . is hereby declared
<br />to be the property of the puhlic."
<br />There are about 3.5 million of us, so
<br />lhat's aboul $340 a year apiece - not bad
<br />for just sitting here and watching the riv-
<br />er flow.
<br />The future could be even brighter. If
<br />the downstream cities wanted more, and
<br />were willing to pay, a majority of Calora.
<br />dans migbt well vote to sell some water
<br />currently diverted to the Front Range.
<br />: More money for all of us, and fewer of 115
<br />to divide it among wben more Front
<br />
<br />Range subdivisions eJ:pericnce Douglas:
<br />County dry taps.
<br />As the water flowed away, and with it
<br />the prospect of turning prairie into shop-
<br />ping malls, the greedhe2ds now Infesting
<br />OJlorado would see gteener p.astures in
<br />some other state, thereby leaving Colorado.
<br />to the people who see it as bome, Dot mere- .
<br />ly as another nmg on the career ladder: :
<br />Within B mere generatiGn, we might be
<br />down to a sensible 2 million Coloradans,
<br />each receiving a couple thousand dollars
<br />a year from water sales. .
<br />Let Arimna, Nevada am! California ~t.
<br />tract the people and associated blessings,
<br />from drive-by shootings to gridlocked'
<br />freeways, while we enjoy a prospero).!s
<br />and unclutte.re.d commotrwealth where
<br />the sky is blue and the rivers flow. .
<br />Bruce Babbitt has come in for some
<br />hard pres.~ lately, but his plan, if e.s:pan- .
<br />ded to include \.be. Upper Basin slates,
<br />could be a blessing to all of us.
<br />And Merry Christmas to all.
<br />Ed Quillen of SaJidll (co:ine@Cl'1l1ffee.ne!) I~ 1110'.
<br />mer newlopapllr edllor whose colmnn ..p~ell's
<br />three tlme~ . month iTl"Emplre. Hill column lip-
<br />pellrs Tuesdays on theop-l!(! p.ge.
<br />
|