(The chart above shows projections of the use of the Colorado River for each basin state. Although the report is fairly recent, the 1990 figures are still considered estimates, as the collection of final information is a long process. Efforts are being made to facilitate the collection and development of data tables to expedite publication. These figures also do not take into account the impact of Arizona`s new water bank. This recent development is considered an “assessment buster”. In a warmer world, Dr. Overpeck said, less water in rivers and lakes is inevitable, no matter what a rainy season can bring. But for the most part, Western politicians “don`t want to talk about it,” he said. “It`s the catastrophe that`s above the horizon if we don`t talk about it.” California authorities this week expressed an interest in finding new ways to deal with the effects of global warming. But Chris Harris, director of California`s Colorado River Board, told the Denver Post that his state was not willing to discuss a concrete deal that would require abandoning a “call” for more water. And John Entsminger, director of the Southern Nevada Water Authority Manager and his state`s chief negotiator, asked how the agreement would help lower states. After 11 years, the mammoth and complicated affair came to an end. The decision in Arizona, California, resulted in major changes of power between states and between states and the federal government.
Water from the Colorado River was distributed, with California received 4.4 maf, Arizona 2.8 maf and Nevada 300,000 af, with each state also allocated all water in their tributaries. Arizona was a big winner and won almost all the benefits it has in 1922 compact. A water supply problem has been resolved. The court granted the reserves enough water to irrigate all passable surfaces within their borders. The water is expected to come from the Colorado River reallocations. Under this standard, five Indian reserves, with a total population of about 10,000, were granted about 900,000 water. Reserves in lower Colorado currently use about 80 to 90 percent of their rights. However, formal approval of such a project was only likely when California and Arizona resolved their dispute over the use of the Colorado River. Lingering animosities prevented any agreement between the two states, and so in 1952, Arizona asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a short portion.
Terry Fulp, the top federal government official on the river, recently told Western water managers: “Our risk is too high. … we cannot cope with this” – referring to the effects of climate change that could make it impossible to meet current needs. He reminded them that looking at last winter`s heavy snow, “a good year doesn`t break the drought in the Colorado River Basin.” Mr. Fulp preferred a constant dependence on the compact and not a revision of commitments between the Southwest states. “The upper pool`s motivation for an agreement is a calculation of security against uncertainty. Water suppliers front range with rights after 1922 are vulnerable and unsure of what could happen with the Colorado River diversions in a prolonged drought,” he said. “Western Slope agriculture fears that its high rights will be vulnerable in a crisis affecting the Front Range.
It is better to negotiate a contingency plan and negotiate before a crisis results in a heavy federal hand. It is a calculation of the acceptable level of risk. California, Arizona and Nevada, the lower states that for years have exhausted more than half of their river water, face greater insecurity and painful withdrawal from overexploitation.