The Great Lakes compact vs the greedy Southwest

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

timon_phocas 5/29/2008 3:55:34 PM

A little information about the laws governing the Colorado River Basin (copied and pasted from link style="font-style: italic;">the Colorado River Compact of 1922 - The cornerstone of the "Law of the River", this Compact was negotiated by the seven Colorado River Basin states and the federal government in 1922. It defined the relationship between the upper basin states, where most of the river's water supply originates, and the lower basin states, where most of the water demands were developing. At the time, the upper basin states were concerned that plans for Hoover Dam and other water development projects in the lower basin would, under the Western water law doctrine of prior appropriation, deprive them of their ability to use the river's flows in the future.

the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 - This act: (1) ratified the 1922 Compact; (2) authorized the construction of Hoover Dam and related irrigation facilities in the lower Basin; (3) apportioned the lower basin's 7.5 maf among the states of Arizona (2.8 maf), California (4.4 maf) and Nevada (0.3 maf); and (4) authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to function as the sole contracting authority for Colorado River water use in the lower basin.

the California Seven-Party agreement of 1931 - This agreement helped settle the long-standing conflict between California agricultural and municipal interests over Colorado River water priorities. The seven principal claimants - Palo Verde Irrigation District, Yuma Project, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District, and the City and County of San Diego - reached consensus in the amounts of water to be allocated on an annual basis to each entity. Although the agreement did not resolve all priority issues, these regulations were also incorporated in the major California water delivery contracts.

the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 - Committed 1.5 maf of the river's annual flow to Mexico.

the upper Colorado Basin Compact of 1948 - Created the Upper Colorado River Commission and apportioned the Upper Basin's 7.5 maf among Colorado (51.75 percent), New Mexico (11.25 percent), Utah (23 percent), and Wyoming (14 percent); the portion of Arizona that lies within the Upper Colorado Basin was also apportioned 50,000 acre-feet annually.

the Colorado Storage Project of 1956 - Provided a comprehensive Upper Basin-wide water resource development plan and authorized the construction of Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Curecanti dams for river regulation and power production, as well as several projects for irrigation and other uses.

the Arizona vs California Supreme Court Decision of 1964 - In 1963, the Supreme Court issued a decision settling a 25-year-old dispute between Arizona and California. The dispute stemmed from Arizona's desire to build the Central Arizona Project so it could use its full Colorado River apportionment. California objected and argued that Arizona's use of water from the Gila River, a Colorado River tributary, constituted use of its Colorado River apportionment, and that it had developed a historical use of some of Arizona's apportionment, which, under the doctrine of prior appropriation, precluded Arizona from developing the project.

The Supreme Court rejected California's arguments, ruling that lower basin states have a right to appropriate and use tributary flows before the tributary co-mingles with the Colorado River, and that the doctrine of prior appropriation did not apply to apportionments in the lower basin.

In 1964, the Court issued its decree. This decree enjoined the Secretary of the Interior from delivering water outside the framework of apportionments defined by the law and mandated the preparation of annual reports documenting the uses of water in the three lower basin states.

In 1979, the Supreme Court issued a Supplemental Decree which addressed present perfected rights referred to in the Colorado River Compact and in the Boulder Canyon Project Act. These rights are entitlements essentially established under state law, and have priority over later contract entitlements.

the Colorado River Basin Project of 1968 - This Act authorized construction of a number of water development projects in both the upper and lower basins, including the Central Arizona Project (CAP). It also made the priority of the CAP water supply subordinate to California's apportionment in times of shortage, and directed the Secretary to prepare, in consultation with the Colorado River Basin states, long-range operating criteria for the Colorado River reservoir system.

The Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs of 1970 (amended March 21, 2005) - Provided for the coordinated operation of reservoirs in the upper and lower basins and set conditions for water releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

Minute 242 of the U.S.-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission of 1973 - Required the U.S. to take actions to reduce the salinity of water being delivered to Mexico at Morelos Dam.

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 - Authorized desalting and salinity control projects, including the Yuma Desalting Plant, to improve Colorado River quality.

Far from single-minded exploitation of the Colorado River, we have been making agreements about the river, with ever more concern about environmental effects, for eighty years now.

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan 5/29/2008 9:16:44 PM

The West's water problems are coming from developers who have managed to bribe, lawyer and bully away water that was originally equally apportioned for farmers, ranchers and industry that existed when the water compacts were established (which also include midwestern states downstream from Rocky Mtn. headwaters).

And think about this. Roughly 50% to 60% of all potable water goes towards irrigation of private property. 52% of all Denver Water customers if you want a more exact Front Range number.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas 5/30/2008 2:17:38 PM

My understanding is that the governing principle in western states water law is prior appropriation. In other words, whoever is using the water first has prior claim on it. It actually means who filed for the water rights first. Water law is a whole specialty for lawyers. Some water districts (like the Denver and Greeley boards) have senior standing claims on water flows all across the state, because they started filing over a century ago. These two water authorities have been essential to the growth of Colorado.

Agriculture is water intensive. I think it's only right that food comes before lawns and swimming pools. Farmers can be more efficient, and that is improving all the time. But agriculture has, and rightly so, a priority on water resources.

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan 5/30/2008 5:20:06 PM

Water law is so complex that associates come in billing $300/hour. Somehow there are provisions for economic development that are able to take precedence over agricultural use and that is how residential and commercial developments (such as the big box developments and tract housing areas) are able to usurp water from farmers. The farmers are literally forced to reduce the amount of irrigation water they use. Farmers/Ranchers are also not allowed to recycle water, everyone gets one use and then has to dispose of it, so nutrient rich waste water from livestock cannot be used for irrigation on the same property.

Stupid? Absolutely.

And there is a new demon on the horizon by the name of Don Million and his Green River water diversion project. There is a certain volume of unclaimed water in the section of the Green River that passes through NW Colorado and Don Million has rounded up some investors to build this pipeline and sell the water to "customers".

I got to confront Mr. Million at an ASCE meeting a few months ago and he flatly refused to reveal any investors, who the target customers were or whether the business model was based on making a profit off of charging a flat rate/volume or, more deviously, making the water in the pipe a privately held commodity that can be bid up through speculation and future volume trading on Wall St. When I brought up the spec/trading scenario and the prospect of Goldman writing peoples' water bills, Don was not happy and stopped answering my questions.

I suspect that the target customers are not companies who can fight back but residents in housing developments who don't know who is supplying their water and will be bound by HOA and mortgage contracts to only buy water from the "official" supplier. No wells and no in-house recycling for toilet flushing and irrigation.

This model has been attempted before in developing countries but when the private water plant ends up charging locals 1/3 to 1/2 of their monthly income for water, the army escorts state engineers onto the premises and escorts the corporate ones to the airport. In the US, this would not happen except in worst case scenarios. Instead there would be long and costly court battles.

Quote Reply

	News As History - September 7, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us