May 9, 2004 

Photo: This is the view from the Hite Overlook, showing the lower water levels as the Colorado River runs through large deposits of sediment on its way to the current record-low level of Lake Powell. (AP PHOTO/ TRENT NELSON)

For years, we've been warned that Colorado may lose the right to some of the Colorado River flows to which it's entitled unless the state more fully develops uses for the water. Our inaction has allowed California and Nevada to exceed their entitlements granted under the Colorado River Compact of 1922.

The story may be changing for the worse, and the reason is a fear of continuing drought in the Western United States.

When Congress enacted the Colorado River Compact 82 years ago, the negotiators estimated that the river would carry at least 15 million acre-feet of water (an acre foot is 325,851 gallons) annually. The compact obligates the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico to deliver half, or an average of 7.5 million acre-feet a year, to the Lower Basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona.

The four Upper Basin states have met their compact obligations during drought by releasing water from Lake Powell in Utah and Arizona. But Lake Powell is down to 42 percent of capacity. At this rate, Powell could go dry as early as 2007.

"That would propel Colorado - and 30 million other Westerners who depend on the Colorado River for their drinking water - into an uncertain future punctuated by recurring water shortages and decades of litigation, experts say," according to a recent issue of "Colorado Water," a newsletter published by Colorado State University's Water Center.

If the lower states were to put a "call" on the river, Colorado may have to curtail water currently diverted from the Western Slope to basins east of the mountains, including through the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project into the Arkansas River.

Then, it's conceivable - though almost unthinkable until now - that Lake Pueblo and other Fry-Ark reservoirs eventually could be drained dry to meet the needs of Las Vegas, Nev., and San Diego, Calif.

California's entitlement is big, fully 4.4 million acre-feet a year. Yet, it has been taking far more, to the tune of 5.2 million acre-feet annually. Last year, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, a former Colorado state attorney general, announced a long-awaited "4.4 agreement" committing California to take conservation measures to live under its entitlement within 15 years.

Oh, the irony! California, the water-guzzling, profligate mecca of swimming pools and conspicuous consumption, would be legally empowered to place a "call" on the Colorado River to get its share, disregarding the fact that for years it's been taking far more than it should.

Steve Sims, chief water counsel for Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, says, "I think it's way to early to be panicked about it. For a long time, we never thought we'd fall below our 10-year rolling average of 75 million acre-feet. No one made plans for dealing with the possibility."

"Right now, I don't think anyone should worry about it. The prudent thing to do is to prepare a plan to administer a compact call if there is a curtailment."

Sims even talked of the possibility five years ago during oral arguments in a water case before the Colorado Supreme Court. Sims advised the court, "When the Colorado River Compact was negotiated, the negotiators made a basic mistake, and that mistake was they assumed that there was at least 15 million acre-feet to divide in the river. There wasn't. It was more like 12 to 13 million acre-feet."

The mistake was to be expected, given the scant hydrological records available in 1922. It's too late now to correct it, in any event.

Sims said it wouldn't be wise - downright foolish - to reopen compact negotiations at this point, following decades of growth in the population and political influence of California and Nevada. They no doubt would love to make a case, based on historical usage, for a bigger share of the Colorado River.

Colorado may have to prepare conservation plans to save water here so it can be delivered to California, Nevada and Arizona. And it could happen at the worst possible time, during drought when the water would be most sorely missed by Colorado.

Rod Kuharich, executive director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, said the state will form a working group to develop a plan for dealing with such a catastrophe. The group is supposed to include representatives from all the major water users on both sides of the Continental Divide: Colorado River Conservation District, others on the Western Slope and, because of transmountain diversions, theSoutheastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado Springs, Denver and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

The Arkansas Valley expects to receive an average of 53,600 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River Basin through the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in the future. The amount has fluctuated wildly, of course, from a mere 8,500 acre-feet in the drought of 2002 to a near-normal 54,600 acre-feet last year.

"We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where the Lower Basin states have developed their entitlement and Colorado can't," Kuharich said. "We need to protect Colorado's entitlement."

If Colorado has to curtail water, the cities with their money and political clout probably would fare better than rural agricultural water users with more modest financial resources.

Decades ago, California dried up the Owens Valley to transform Los Angeles into an urban landscape on the edge of the desert. Next, California may be in a position in a few years to put a call on the water used to irrigate Colorado farms, too. That would be the last straw.

Research Director Tom McAvoy is a member of The Chieftain editorial board.

http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1084082400/2