I’ve been a water engineer in Southwest Colorado for 50 years and watched the importance of the Colorado River Compact increase from a background document to front and center as the current drought continues. I disagree with Louis Meyer in his Feb. 21 guest column that the compact needs to be modified.
Back in the 1910s, Colorado lost in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Wyoming vs. Colorado case that gave Wyoming water users priority over Colorado based on “first in time, first in right.” If “first in time, first in right” were used to allocate water among the states in the Colorado River Basin, California would have the right to most of the water.
Delph Carpenter, known as the “father of interstate river compacts,” recognized this problem and instigated negotiations for a compact to allocate water within the Colorado River Basin. During 1922, the Colorado River Compact was negotiated so that Colorado and other Upper Basin states would not be precluded from development of water because of California’s early development.
California negotiated because it needed political support to construct Hoover Dam. The compact has done exactly that for the last century and will into the future. Colorado has not developed its full allocation because of economic feasibility, environmental laws and other issues – not the compact.
Some people have said the compact needs to be changed because it was based on 15 million acre-feet at Lees Ferry (dividing point between the upper and lower Colorado River basins) with each basin being allocated 7.5 maf. In 1922, there were no reservoirs yet on the Colorado River. So rather than 7.5 maf every year, a rolling 10-year average of 75 maf was used as criteria that the Upper Basin could not cause the flows to be depleted below that threshold.
The current 10-year amount is about 89 maf, well above the minimum criteria. Even if less than 75 maf, the Upper Basin is only obligated to find the cause and, possibly, reduce the water uses that started after the compact. Water uses prior to the compact are protected.
Colorado will never get a better deal.
The current water issue in the Colorado River Basin is the low water levels in Lakes Meade and Powell because the Lower Basin is using about 10 maf a year, rather than 7.5 maf contemplated in 1922. The compact is fine. Lower Basin overuse is the problem. The draining of Meade and Powell has nothing to do with the compact being based on 15 maf or 13 maf or 17 maf.
Colorado representatives in the current Colorado River negotiations understand that Lower Basin overuse is the reason for draining the reservoirs.
Also, Meyer suggests that more public discussion is needed. However, this is already being done through the nine basin roundtables established in 2005. For example, the Southwest Roundtable meets four times a year – state agencies that represent Colorado give a report on the Colorado River negotiations at each meeting. Roundtable meetings are open to the public to provide information and obtain input. See more at waterinfo.org/resources/southwest-basin-roundtable/.
In order to change the compact, each of the seven states and Congress would have to pass the same law, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
The compact is working as it was intended to protect Colorado’s opportunity to utilize water. I am sure that renegotiation of the compact would result in more water to California and less to Colorado.
Steve Harris is a Durango water engineer with 50 years of experience and 41 years with Harris Water Engineering. He is an original member and past chair of the Southwest Roundtable, and former member of the Interbasin Compact Committee.
