Colorado River Project Essay, Research Paper

COLORADO RIVER PROJECT

1. The current problem is that a 1922 compact for dividing the Colorado River assumed it would flow nearly 17 million acre-feet per year to be divided between 7 states, 20 million people, and 2 million acres of farmland. Currently, the Colorado is flowing at only 9 million acre-feet per year. And 1.5 million acre-feet are for Mexico every year. The upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah) believe that the lower basin states get too much of the water. The lower basin states (California, Arizona, and Nevada) point out that have more people, more industry & economy, and more farmland in short, they have more to offer the country and thus deserve all the water they can get.

And remember, there is much less water to go around than there was in 1922.

2. The current solution involves giving the upper basin states 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year. The lower basin states were to receive the same, according to the 1922 Colorado River Compact (also called the Seven Party Agreement), but in 1963 the US Supreme Court ruled California would receive 4.4 million acre-feet per year, Arizona 2.8 million, and Nevada 300,000 per year. An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover one acre of land with water 12 inches (1 foot) deep, or about 325,000 gallons. It also can sustain a family of 3-5 for one year. The 1922 law also detailed how California, the Western giant in all areas, would use its water. The Pala Verde, Yuma Project Reservation, Imperial Valley Irrigation District, and Coachellea Valley Water District are allocated 3.85 million acre-feet per year, while the Metropolitan Water District (for the L.A. area) gets 1.3 million acre-feet per year. In return for such a relatively low rate, the Metropolitan is allowed to run Lake Mead reservoir, which holds 5 million acre-feet.

3. There are essentially four groups to consider in the dispute: Mexico, farmers, city-dwellers, and nature itself. Currently, LA gets 1.3 million acre-feet per year, with all of its population, while farmers receive nearly 80% of the Colorado s allocation, despite the fact that farmers often use inefficient practices. For example, farmers buy much of their water from the Federal Government, which runs dams like the Hoover (or Boulder) Dam. The government sells the water at dirt-cheap prices. The farmers buy up lots of water and then irrigate fields by flooding them, create their own storage basins, and produce thirsty crops in desert like atmospheres.

Obviously, America s farmers are not intentionally being selfish. Farmers in California s Imperial Valley produce a lot of our food and are generally very productive. They argue that city dwellers are expanding at too fast a rate (200,000 people annually according to California s Metropolitan Water District web page). Also, approximately 96% of any excess water is lost to evaporation.

Mexico gets only 1.5 million acre-feet per year. Mexico has an increasing population that is generally very poor and always in need. California doesn t seem to care, though. Usually, Southern California s All-American Canal looses 106,000 acre-feet per year to Mexico via underground seepage. There is a plan, Time Magazine notes, to line the canal s boundaries with concrete to prevent this. Mexico is protesting.

Some are suggesting that in return for building these walls, we should send Mexico money in return. That is a good idea, but the Federal Government so far has disagreed. That is not fair.

In one area, the situation has gotten much more fair. Up until 1996, the Glen Canyon dam north of the Grand Canyon deprive the beaches along the Gulf of Mexico of silt. Surge production from dams would really end the silt implementing process. But the Department of the Interior decided in 1996 to release more than 100 billion gallons of water from the Dam, adding approximately three feet to some beaches. That was a good idea.

All in all, except for the Federal Government s treatment of Mexico, we believe the situation is generally fair. Three years ago, action was taken to improve the environment (releasing water from Glen Canyon Dam). And there is an estimated 1 million acre-feet per year in runoff that is not needed. 96% of it is lost to evaporation. That should be addressed, but it is a question of efficiency, not really fairness

4. A change is being contemplated because too much water is being used. We can really reduce our usage, even though demand is growing. It is a question of efficiency. Also, a change is being contemplated because of growing awareness of the environment. Although the great dam projects of the 1930s satisfied a need, people did not look at environmental concerns back then. Now they do.

5. The people involved in this dispute often have very different answers to the question, what should be done concerning water usage?

a) A member of the U.S. House of Representatives from southern California would want to continue his state s taking of excess water from Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. He would also make sure that LA and the Imperial Valley were always the first priorities, although he would probably more inclined to make water available to city dwellers than Imperial farmers because LA tenants have more money.

b) An Arizona Representative would be supportive of the new Central Arizona Project (also known as the Western Arizona Project) which is a 336-mile canal in bad shape. It runs at only 73% capacity. It cost $4 billion. Though an Arizona Rep might want some federal aid for the CAP, what he would really support is a plan that would sell his state s excess water to California, instead of allowing California to simply get it for free. He could then use the money for the CAP.

c) A Nevada Rep would basically want the same thing payment for allowing his water to be used by California. Also, he would be concerned about the fastest growing city in the U.S.A. Las Vegas. Its demands are skyrocketing!

d) A Mexican farmer would want his country to be able to get runoff and excess groundwater that California is considering sealing off with concrete walls. He also would want the 1944 Treaty that gives Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet per year updated to allow his country more (that is if he is literate enough to even understand these issues poverty is rampant in Mexico).

e) The US Bureau of Reclimation would want to maintain the status quo and update things gradually, so his bureau is not made to look out of date. Also, he would probably be at odds with environmental groups who worry that dams and such have a negative impact on the environment. For example, the flooding of 100 billion gallons from the Glen Canyon Dam in 1996 came only after decades of environmental protest over the state of lack of silt along Gulf of California beaches. For all that time, the Bureau was concerned only with the dams, not the environment. Also, along the Grand Canyon, federally run coal-burning plants pollute, but the Interior and Energy Departments have not given into environmentalist demands to install expensive emissions filters.

6. Our plan does not call for radical changes. On the contrary, we simply insist on conservation and efficiency. We would ban the construction of any new dams or canals and in return wane federal activity in the southwest. To be fair to Mexico, we would entitle that country to 2 million acre-feet instead of 1.5 thus ending the debate over the concrete walls for southern California canals (they could build them and not reimburse Mexico because Mexico would be getting an extra 500,000 acre-feet per year.

Within the U.S., the 1922 Compact would be updated so that California could not get excess water for free. It would have to pay for it. That money could allow states like Arizona and Nevada to improve programs like the Central Arizona Project and preserve water for Las Vegas.

Furthermore, farming should be regulated. The federal government should increase the price at which it sells water to farmers to deter the increase in farming. Additionally, the farmers should be encouraged to let more land lay follow. A test program between the Metropolitan Water District and the Palo Verde Valley let 30,000 acres lay follow, allowing the water to go to LA. As the Metropolitan Water District s web page notes, there was no serious economic disruption, especially since the MWD compensated farmers at $620 per fallow acre. Our plan would increase this concept, forcing each agricultural district to let many acres lay follow in return for compensation. It should be noted that by diverting farm water for cities, we are not saying LA and other places should be given free reign.

Instead, by changing the Compact, the Department of Interior will be saying: if you want to use our water you should abide by some regulations. LA should be forced to abide by population constraints. In fact, even though Californian cities would get excess water (now for a fee) and water from farming districts, the state s overall apportionment from the river should be decreased. Currently, California gets over 5 million acre-feet per year. It must be decreased to 4.6 million -acre feet. This can be done thru efficiency improvements:

1. improve farming efficiency, with cities paying the cost and getting the excess in return

2. letting farmland lay fallow, with saved water going to cities

3. allowing states like Nevada and Arizona to sell excess to California, so the earned money can go to improving things like the Central Arizona Project.

4. imposing building and urban sprawl restrictions on cities so the cities demands do not go crazy

5. institute a joint federal-Californian program to get water from the pacific and desalinate it. As Mr. Cheyne said, such a program would be extremely expensive. But that is why the federal government would provide much of the funding.

In the end, with California s decreased allotment and increased efficiency in projects like the Central Arizona Project, we can save water. Also, water will now come from the Pacific Ocean. We would also deter more farming all over the region by increasing the water prices. We would also implement a Bureau of Reclamation project to save the surplus water from being evaporated.

In short, no radical changes just improvements in efficiency. And we would be fair to Mexico. This reflects our group s position that the current situation is not really unfair and not in crisis it just needs improvement. And with involvement by all parties, that can be accomplished.

COLORADO RIVER PROJECT

1. The current problem is that a 1922 compact for dividing the Colorado River assumed it would flow nearly 17 million acre-feet per year to be divided between 7 states, 20 million people, and 2 million acres of farmland. Currently, the Colorado is flowing at only 9 million acre-feet per year. And 1.5 million acre-feet are for Mexico every year. The upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah) believe that the lower basin states get too much of the water. The lower basin states (California, Arizona, and Nevada) point out that have more people, more industry & economy, and more farmland in short, they have more to offer the country and thus deserve all the water they can get.

And remember, there is much less water to go around than there was in 1922.

2. The current solution involves giving the upper basin states 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year. The lower basin states were to receive the same, according to the 1922 Colorado River Compact (also called the Seven Party Agreement), but in 1963 the US Supreme Court ruled California would receive 4.4 million acre-feet per year, Arizona 2.8 million, and Nevada 300,000 per year. An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover one acre of land with water 12 inches (1 foot) deep, or about 325,000 gallons. It also can sustain a family of 3-5 for one year. The 1922 law also detailed how California, the Western giant in all areas, would use its water. The Pala Verde, Yuma Project Reservation, Imperial Valley Irrigation District, and Coachellea Valley Water District are allocated 3.85 million acre-feet per year, while the Metropolitan Water District (for the L.A. area) gets 1.3 million acre-feet per year. In return for such a relatively low rate, the Metropolitan is allowed to run Lake Mead reservoir, which holds 5 million acre-feet.

3. There are essentially four groups to consider in the dispute: Mexico, farmers, city-dwellers, and nature itself. Currently, LA gets 1.3 million acre-feet per year, with all of its population, while farmers receive nearly 80% of the Colorado s allocation, despite the fact that farmers often use inefficient practices. For example, farmers buy much of their water from the Federal Government, which runs dams like the Hoover (or Boulder) Dam. The government sells the water at dirt-cheap prices. The farmers buy up lots of water and then irrigate fields by flooding them, create their own storage basins, and produce thirsty crops in desert like atmospheres.

Obviously, America s farmers are not intentionally being selfish. Farmers in California s Imperial Valley produce a lot of our food and are generally very productive. They argue that city dwellers are expanding at too fast a rate (200,000 people annually according to California s Metropolitan Water District web page). Also, approximately 96% of any excess water is lost to evaporation.

Mexico gets only 1.5 million acre-feet per year. Mexico has an increasing population that is generally very poor and always in need. California doesn t seem to care, though. Usually, Southern California s All-American Canal looses 106,000 acre-feet per year to Mexico via underground seepage. There is a plan, Time Magazine notes, to line the canal s boundaries with concrete to prevent this. Mexico is protesting.

Some are suggesting that in return for building these walls, we should send Mexico money in return. That is a good idea, but the Federal Government so far has disagreed. That is not fair.

In one area, the situation has gotten much more fair. Up until 1996, the Glen Canyon dam north of the Grand Canyon deprive the beaches along the Gulf of Mexico of silt. Surge production from dams would really end the silt implementing process. But the Department of the Interior decided in 1996 to release more than 100 billion gallons of water from the Dam, adding approximately three feet to some beaches. That was a good idea.

All in all, except for the Federal Government s treatment of Mexico, we believe the situation is generally fair. Three years ago, action was taken to improve the environment (releasing water from Glen Canyon Dam). And there is an estimated 1 million acre-feet per year in runoff that is not needed. 96% of it is lost to evaporation. That should be addressed, but it is a question of efficiency, not really fairness

4. A change is being contemplated because too much water is being used. We can really reduce our usage, even though demand is growing. It is a question of efficiency. Also, a change is being contemplated because of growing awareness of the environment. Although the great dam projects of the 1930s satisfied a need, people did not look at environmental concerns back then. Now they do.

5. The people involved in this dispute often have very different answers to the question, what should be done concerning water usage?

a) A member of the U.S. House of Representatives from southern California would want to continue his state s taking of excess water from Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. He would also make sure that LA and the Imperial Valley were always the first priorities, although he would probably more inclined to make water available to city dwellers than Imperial farmers because LA tenants have more money.

b) An Arizona Representative would be supportive of the new Central Arizona Project (also known as the Western Arizona Project) which is a 336-mile canal in bad shape. It runs at only 73% capacity. It cost $4 billion. Though an Arizona Rep might want some federal aid for the CAP, what he would really support is a plan that would sell his state s excess water to California, instead of allowing California to simply get it for free. He could then use the money for the CAP.

c) A Nevada Rep would basically want the same thing payment for allowing his water to be used by California. Also, he would be concerned about the fastest growing city in the U.S.A. Las Vegas. Its demands are skyrocketing!

d) A Mexican farmer would want his country to be able to get runoff and excess groundwater that California is considering sealing off with concrete walls. He also would want the 1944 Treaty that gives Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet per year updated to allow his country more (that is if he is literate enough to even understand these issues poverty is rampant in Mexico).

e) The US Bureau of Reclimation would want to maintain the status quo and update things gradually, so his bureau is not made to look out of date. Also, he would probably be at odds with environmental groups who worry that dams and such have a negative impact on the environment. For example, the flooding of 100 billion gallons from the Glen Canyon Dam in 1996 came only after decades of environmental protest over the state of lack of silt along Gulf of California beaches. For all that time, the Bureau was concerned only with the dams, not the environment. Also, along the Grand Canyon, federally run coal-burning plants pollute, but the Interior and Energy Departments have not given into environmentalist demands to install expensive emissions filters.

6. Our plan does not call for radical changes. On the contrary, we simply insist on conservation and efficiency. We would ban the construction of any new dams or canals and in return wane federal activity in the southwest. To be fair to Mexico, we would entitle that country to 2 million acre-feet instead of 1.5 thus ending the debate over the concrete walls for southern California canals (they could build them and not reimburse Mexico because Mexico would be getting an extra 500,000 acre-feet per year.

Within the U.S., the 1922 Compact would be updated so that California could not get excess water for free. It would have to pay for it. That money could allow states like Arizona and Nevada to improve programs like the Central Arizona Project and preserve water for Las Vegas.

Furthermore, farming should be regulated. The federal government should increase the price at which it sells water to farmers to deter the increase in farming. Additionally, the farmers should be encouraged to let more land lay follow. A test program between the Metropolitan Water District and the Palo Verde Valley let 30,000 acres lay follow, allowing the water to go to LA. As the Metropolitan Water District s web page notes, there was no serious economic disruption, especially since the MWD compensated farmers at $620 per fallow acre. Our plan would increase this concept, forcing each agricultural district to let many acres lay follow in return for compensation. It should be noted that by diverting farm water for cities, we are not saying LA and other places should be given free reign.

Instead, by changing the Compact, the Department of Interior will be saying: if you want to use our water you should abide by some regulations. LA should be forced to abide by population constraints. In fact, even though Californian cities would get excess water (now for a fee) and water from farming districts, the state s overall apportionment from the river should be decreased. Currently, California gets over 5 million acre-feet per year. It must be decreased to 4.6 million -acre feet. This can be done thru efficiency improvements:

1. improve farming efficiency, with cities paying the cost and getting the excess in return

2. letting farmland lay fallow, with saved water going to cities

3. allowing states like Nevada and Arizona to sell excess to California, so the earned money can go to improving things like the Central Arizona Project.

4. imposing building and urban sprawl restrictions on cities so the cities demands do not go crazy

5. institute a joint federal-Californian program to get water from the pacific and desalinate it. As Mr. Cheyne said, such a program would be extremely expensive. But that is why the federal government would provide much of the funding.

In the end, with California s decreased allotment and increased efficiency in projects like the Central Arizona Project, we can save water. Also, water will now come from the Pacific Ocean. We would also deter more farming all over the region by increasing the water prices. We would also implement a Bureau of Reclamation project to save the surplus water from being evaporated.

In short, no radical changes just improvements in efficiency. And we would be fair to Mexico. This reflects our group s position that the current situation is not really unfair and not in crisis it just needs improvement. And with involvement by all parties, that can be accomplished.

334