Water Experts Call Colorado River Compact Into Question

[hatrack]

LAS VEGAS - The refrains were uttered again and again during a yearly gathering of Western water officials here last week: The Colorado River Compact is working. The historical seven-state agreement, signed in 1922, will survive the current drought. The half-full reservoirs are a sign of success, not failure. Whether their tone was defensive or simply reassuring, Colorado Compact supporters felt compelled to speak up for a system that is being tested as never before. The worst drought in 100 years has placed unprecedented strains on water users in both the upper and lower parts of the Colorado River Basin. Planners are now on a crisis footing, and reduced allocations are in the offing. The real hunkering down may be yet to come.

EDIT

Colorado River Compact detractors call such talk wishful thinking. The template has changed, they say. And water officials have been slow to adjust to what they call a new reality for the Colorado and its water storage assets. David Haskell, policy director for the environmental group Living Rivers, believes the original compact was signed and allocations made under incorrect assumptions. Tree-ring science, he says, now shows that the 1900s was one of the wettest centuries on record, and that the 1980s - when Lake Powell was filled - was the wettest decade in that wet century. As a result, the compact states have been living large, artificially.

"Saying the compact is working is like sitting in a room full of food and never being hungry," Haskell said. "But now they're down to their last few hamburgers and everything is changing. "What we've got now is a whole lot of demand and less supply," he added. "It worked up until now because it was an extremely wet century and the '80s was an extremely wet decade. Were it not for that decade, Lake Powell would never have been more than half-full. It would be empty now. What you've seen is a system that has been working under very beneficial circumstances."

Water officials beg to differ. The compact states have weathered the drought very well, they say. And regardless of history, a Lake Powell now 130 feet below capacity is still providing users with both power and water. The compact system predicted periods of drought and shortage. The system is working exactly as it was intended to."

EDIT

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2491513

[phantom power]

1. So, this compact was designed...

... when maybe 10% of the current southwestern population lived out here (or less than that?). Arizona had only been a formal state of the union for 10 years.

I mean, what are the odds that this thing could be relevant, considering how much has changed.

[NNadir]

2. As I understand it, the Anasazi culture grew and collapsed under just

such a period of western wetness and dryness.

Plus ca change...

[hatrack]

3. Yes, but we're SOOOOOOOO much smarter than the Anasazi . . .

. . . that we can grow forever and ever and ever in a region that gets five inches of rain a year.

Yeah, uh-huh.

[NNadir]

4. Yeah, real geniuses, we. n/t

[AZCat]

5. That, and salt buildup

As I understand it, salt buildup also played a part in the uprooting of the Anasazi culture. The crops were no longer able to grow in the soil and the people had to move.

Of course, I could be wrong, but by the time the CAP water reaches me here in Tucson (the end of the line) it is pretty salty.

[NNadir]

6. The two problems are closely related.

Too little water requires irrigation and irrigation reduces the continental salt flows to the ocean.

This, too, is an old story. I've heard it said that the Romans never actually sowed salt in Carthagian granaries. The salt was sown by the farmers who irrigated the fields. Salt sown by soldiers would have simply washed away in areas with adequate rainfall.

[rfkrfk]

7. Why are farmers, first in line?

.
Farmers, aka 'irrigation districts',
are first in line, for the water, and pay a fixed price.
Current farmers are heirs, of the originals.
If there is any water after farmers take what's 'theirs',
water is allowed to go to the peons in the cities.
Farmers might buy water for fifty a acre-foot,
and then, seemingly, are fast to point out that
cities should be investing in desalting plants, that
supply water at ten times the price.
Of course, farmers don't want you to know this.
Get rid of water 'rights', Plenty of water for people.
.
Why do farmers 'own' the 'easy' water, in perpetuity?

[hatrack]

8. Lots of reasons, most of them having to do with water law structure

If you go back 100 years or more and look at how state & federal law water laws were written, the fundamental doctrine is "first in time, first in line" - that is, whoever has the senior water rights continues to hold seniority in perpetuity.

This isn't the case for every use of water. "Beneficial use" is a common water law doctrine which holds that any use of water - growing wheat, growing alfalfa, watering golf courses or hosing down pavement - is "beneficial use". The one use that doesn't fall under this heading is letting rivers convey water downstream, or leaving lakes along. These are also among the only circumstances under which someone with a water right can lose it - if they don't use it.

In addition, federal and state water policy was to subsidize the cost of water so that small family farms could afford it. The whole idea of the Central Valley Project in California (for example) was to provide subsidized water to farm families. In return, farmers would accept acreage and ownership limitations. Of course, things didn't quite work out that way. Big corporate landowners cobbled together "family" farms of tens or hundreds of thousands of acres, all using subsidized water, by handing out titles to aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, nephews, great-grandsons, all of whom got their 360 acres.

There's much, much more. It's a really complex but very interesting corner of American history.

[rfkrfk]

9. My sympathy for billionaires, has been used up

Due to election year burnout, my sympathy for billionaires
{Skull n Bones class of '64, Skull n Bones ass of '67, etc}
has evaporated.
Lots of people hae finantial problems.
Tough. If some billionaires will be inconvienced, tough.
'Water rights' is a ripoff of the people.

[Muzzle Tough]

11. That sounds a lot like a Soviet style planned economy.

I think that since water is a limited resource, they should auction it off to the highest bidder, instead of doing what you described as being the current practice.

[Muzzle Tough]

10. Water subsidies to farmers should be ended.

It's easy for a farmer to tell people in cities to use desalination when he's getting subsidized water for a tiny fraction of the cost of desalination.

Most water that's used in the west is used for subsidized farming. Get rid of the farm subsidies, and the water shortages will disappear.

The Colorado River has been overdrained. Too much water is being wasted.

I would raise residential water prices in the West to perhaps $8 for 1,000 gallons. Because right now, it's so cheap that people treat it like it's an infinite resource, instead of the scarce resource that it is.

I know the Las Vegas government pays people $1 per square foot to rip up their lawn. Why not just raise residential water rates instead?

[AZCat]

12. Actually, Tucson water rates reach your stated price

The Current Tucson Water Department Rates are staggered based on usage. There are three separate charges: a monthly service charge, usage charges, and a CAP fee.

For example, the residential water rate usage fees for a single family as of July 12, 2004 is this:

Charge
Category.....Charge/Ccf
1 – 15 Ccf.....$1.03
16 – 30 Ccf.....$3.60
31 – 45 Ccf.....$5.05
Over 45 Ccf.....$7.13

A Ccf is 100 cubic feet of water, or 748 gallons. The top tier price for water is then about $9.53 per 1,000 gallons. This doesn't factor in summer water usage fees either.


I would like it if other areas in the west took the same approach, but here in Tucson at least we have been trying to live within our means.

[Muzzle Tough]

13. Thanks for that information.

But they should charge the high rate starting with the very first water usage of the month. They shouldn't wait until 45 Ccf to start charging the highest rate.

[rfkrfk]

14. another 'tax the poor' scam, just wonderful

How much does the restaurant at the Billionaire's Club
pay for water?