The Honorable Gale Norton

Secretary of the Interior

Speech to the Colorado River Water Users Association

Las Vegas, Nevada

December 16, 2002

 

It is a pleasure to be with all of you who share a common commitment to the future of the Colorado River. 

 

I am joined today by Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley and Commissioner John Keys.  I rely on Bennett and John to carry out the Department=s responsibilities with respect to the waters of the Colorado River.  They have my full faith and confidence.

 

Meeting here in Las Vegas, the city of gaming, the thought comes to mind that we have been involved in a high-stakes poker game on the issue that is on everyone=s mind, and that is the California 4.4 Plan.

 

The stakes are high, and each party is studying their hand.  The drama is building.  If this were a game, it would be time to lay our cards on the table and demonstrate that the Department of the Interior has not been bluffing.  However, this is not a game, it is serious business.  But I will lay our cards on the table here this morning.

 

Our common future is shaped by record drought and population growth within the Basin.  These factors herald a new era of limits on Colorado River water use.  These limits are shaping the decisions that will guide the future course of river management.

 

While increasing water demand is causing change, what must not change is our commitment to honor compacts, decrees and agreements.  Otherwise the legal foundation upon which this river is administered will be at risk.

 

We are at a turning point in the history of the Colorado River.

 

For the first time, a Secretary of the Interior faces the need to enforce the limits confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the historic Arizona v. California litigation. 

 

The issue is not whether but when California will live within its apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet of water.

 

It is important that not just you attending this conference, but that all who live in the seven Colorado River Basin states, understand how we arrived at this critical point in shaping the future of Colorado River policy.

 

In 1929, California agreed to limit its annual use of water from the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre-feet.  Yet over the years, California has grown accustomed to using more than 5 million acre-feet of water per year.

 

Two factors made this additional water available.  Other states were not using their full apportionments and, second, reservoirs were generally full and surplus water was available. 

 

That has changed.

 


The basin is experiencing one of the most significant drought cycles in modern history.  This year produced the lowest Colorado River flow on record, at just 25% of the 30-year-average flow.

 

Total natural runoff in the Colorado River Basin during 2002 water year is estimated at 7 million acre-feet.  To put this in context, total demands for Colorado River water, including losses, over this same period was approximately 152 million acre-feet.  These demands were met by reducing storage in the Basin by more than 82 million acre-feet in this period. 

 

In 2002 California will use approximately 5.2 million acre feet - which means that California could be seen as using 75% of the water that the Basin produced.

 

At the same time, the Basin states are also experiencing population growth.  As a result, states like Arizona and Nevada, that once did not use their full Colorado River apportionments, now do.

 

Over the last decade, the Department and the seven basin states painstakingly negotiated an historic agreement on Colorado River water use.

 

The principal issue of the negotiations was how to achieve certainty that California would actually reduce its overuse of the Colorado River.  The agreement that emerged is embodied in what is known as the AInterim Surplus Guidelines.@

 

This agreement is non-partisan, as demonstrated by the fact that my predecessor, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, negotiated and approved the Guidelines.  After careful review when I took office, I endorsed the agreement, and decided to stay the course.  That was the right decision then, it is the right decision now.  My staff and I have been working for more than a year and a half to keep the process on track.

 

This seven-state agreement gave California a choice for reducing its Colorado River overuse:

 

California could take specific actions to reduce its Colorado River water use to 4.4 million acre-feet by the year 2015. In return, California would receive enhanced access to surplus water during a 15 year interim period.  This is known as the Asoft landing@ for California.

 

Alternatively, if California didn=t take required actions, it would immediately lose enhanced access to surplus water, beginning January 1, 2003.  This is known as the Ahard landing@ approach.

 

California=s choice will be determined by whether California water entities sign the Quantification Settlement Agreement before January 1st.  At this time, it appears that California=s Imperial Irrigation District has decided not to execute the QSA.

 

This QSA is extremely important to the basin states and to the Department.  The QSA quantifies California agricultural water entitlements - a matter that has been unresolved since 1931.

 

Without a clear understanding of each entities= portion of California=s agricultural entitlement, it will be very difficult to transfer water from California=s agricultural users to its urban users.  These transfers may be the only solution for California to live within its 4.4 million acre-foot limit.  Here=s why.

 

California=s agricultural users have a priority right to 3.85 million acre-feet of this apportionment, and the small remainder is all that is left for Southern California cities serving more than 17 million people.

 


If California chooses the Ahard landing@ approach, California will lose access to surplus water beginning January 1, 2003.  Cities in Southern California will bear the immediate shortfall, potentially losing as much as half of the Colorado River water they currently receive.

 

Because the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California had the leadership and foresight to develop alternative water supplies, people there will continue to see water flow from their taps.  But over time, the reduction in Colorado River water could have very real impacts to all water users in Southern California.

 

As you all know, the operations of the Colorado River reservoir system are determined in each year's Colorado River Annual Operating Plan.  The Annual Operating Plan is developed with input from the Basin States, Tribal representatives, environmental groups and other members of the public.

 

I signed the 2003 Annual Operating Plan this morning.  The Annual Operating Plan implements the Surplus Guidelines.  It provides that if the California entities do not sign the QSA, surplus deliveries of water to Southern California cities will automatically be suspended in 2003.

 

As Secretary and River Master, I must enforce the Law of the River.  This means I will hold California to the express covenant it made in 1929 to limit its use of the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre-feet.

 

No alternative is permitted under the Decree of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.  Absent enforcement of the limits established in the Law of the River, the allocation of the right to consume water among the states would be meaningless.

 

Enforcing the seven-state agreement preserves the important principle that agreements will be honored.  These commitments were carefully negotiated by all seven Basin states and the Interior Department.  California helped craft the agreement.  If this agreement is not enforced, other water negotiations and agreements will be at risk.  Another decade-long round of U.S. Supreme Court litigation on the Colorado River is a very real danger.

 

If the California entities choose not to take the steps necessary for the gradual, voluntary reductions contemplated under the seven-state agreement, California will lose access to extra water available under the Interim Surplus Guidelines.  In such an event, California will be forced to live within its 4.4 million acre-feet apportionment from the Colorado River in 2003.

 

While we understand the desire of California entities to obtain certainty with respect to concerns about what the future may bring, the Law of the River does not provide any exception to the requirement that California live within its legal entitlement of water from the Colorado River.

 

My hope is that the California entities can still sign the QSA before the December 31st deadline.  I am directing the Bureau of Reclamation - under the guidance and direction of Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley--to work with the California entities to achieve that goal.

 

I am also directing my staff to initiate consultation with representatives of California and the other Basin States on the appropriate mechanism for implementing the 4.4 million acre-foot limitation on January 1st.

 

While we have not yet finalized the details, it is fair to say that there will be an actual reduction in diversions through the Colorado River Aqueduct in January 2003.

 


In the event that the QSA is not signed by the deadline, it is possible for California to have the Guidelines reinstated.  Reinstatement can occur if the QSA is signed, or if California takes such actions as are required by the Department. 

 

For those who rest hope on the Aall required actions@ option in the Guidelines, you should be aware that the actions that will be required must be real and permanent.

 

It makes no sense to respond to a failure to meet the first deadline in the Seven States agreement by lessening the requirements for enhanced access to surplus water.  To the contrary, the bar will be raised.

 

The Department will also be carefully considering all of these issues in the course of acting on the pending water orders for 2003.  In this context, the Department may take other steps to ensure that all requirements of the Decree of the United States Supreme Court are met.

 

Finally, as noted in our Federal Register notice last summer, we are aware of the impact of a suspension of the enhanced surplus on Nevada.  We will continue our discussions with Nevada and the other basin states to address this issue.  We understand the equity issues, and are wrestling with the legal issues associated with separating Nevada=s future from the consequences of California=s actions.

 

The California 4.4 plan is not the only issue affecting the Colorado River.  Our treaty obligations with Mexico, the Endangered Species Act, and Indian Water settlements are also important. 

 

We share the Colorado River with the Republic of Mexico.  We also share the Rio Grande with Mexico, and the 1944 Treaty defines each nation=s rights to water from these rivers.

 

Secretary of State Powell and I, along with other senior members of the Administration, met with our counterparts from Mexico in Mexico City late last month and discussed those treaty obligations.

 

As you know, Mexico wants more water from the Colorado River.  But as we explained to our friends in Mexico, the demands on the River for uses in the United States are increasing.

 

We do not have extra water to send across the border.  As Secretary Powell explained, AWe are committed to upholding our water treaty obligations.@  We will continue to do so.  We expect the Republic of Mexico to do the same.

 

We are working with the International Boundary and Water Commission on efforts to support the recently adopted Minute 306 to the 1944 Treaty. Three of our Interior agencies - the U.S. Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation-- are engaged with Mexico on a variety of tasks.  They include vegetation mapping and habitat restoration. 

 

We will continue to work in a cooperative fashion with the Republic of Mexico on Colorado and Rio Grande River issues.

 

We also take very seriously the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act in the course of managing the Colorado River.  Yes, the Act has caused conflict in other river basins, but we are working very hard with our partners in the Colorado River basin to find success instead of conflict.  The good news is there are Endangered Species Act success stories that demonstrate the value of consultation and cooperation.

 


The first example of success is the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.  I=ve been involved with this program for a long time.  I was a young attorney at Interior when the process began.  It was December one year ago when I signed the extension of the Cooperative Agreement for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

 

The recovery goals for the humpback chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker were signed on August 1st by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 

No one was really certain in 1988 how much progress could be made toward recovering endangered Colorado River fish while allowing the water development needed to serve growing Western communities.

 

But a concerted effort brought together organizations with diverse goals, ranging from state and federal agencies to environmental groups to water and power developers. 

 

I cite this as an excellent example of planning ahead to meet the demands of the Endangered Species Act.  All jurisdictions need to take Endangered Species Act problems seriously and to factor them into their long-term planning.  Upper Colorado River Users came to grips with this more than a dozen years ago and that planning is beginning to show success today.

 

This can be a model that the Klamath and Rio Grande and other basins can follow.

 

Moving downriver, the Department has been moving forward with the Grand Canyon Adaptive Management Program.   This is a cooperative process that involves 25 very diverse interests brought together through a Federal Advisory Committee.

 

Ten days ago, the Department approved an innovative and complex experiment that is designed to benefit both endangered fish and to improve sediment retention in Marble and Grand Canyons.  This experiment was designed and recommended through the Adaptive Management Working Group.

 

As a result of our earlier 1996 experiment releasing flows from Glen Canyon Dam, we learned that flooding remains a vital aspect of the natural dynamics of the Grand Canyon.

 

But it also taught us that we need to utilize tributary sediment imports more effectively.  To do this, our experts at the U.S. Geological Survey believe it is critical to take sediment that comes into the Grand Canyon during monsoon weather events, and move it onto beaches in the Canyon through the use of high flows.  We had hoped to do an experimental flow in 2003.

 

Unfortunately, in this ongoing drought year, we didn=t have any sizeable storms that would have produced sediment.  So, we=ll have to carry these high-flow test plans over to 2004.

 

The second portion of the experiment will include high fluctuating flows during January through March to disrupt the spawning and survival of non-native trout.  We expect this to benefit native fish, especially the endangered humpback chub. 

 

The last, but certainly not least, endangered species project is the Multi-Species Conservation Program for the lower Colorado River basin.  We hope it will avoid significant uncertainty for future operations of the Colorado River.

 

The Multi-Species Conservation Program reflects another collaborative and innovative means to address Endangered Species Act issues. Yet, it still provides the traditional benefits of the River to those who depend on it for sustenance and for their livelihood.


We have now completed the impact analysis report for the Conservation Program, revised the covered species list, and prepared a second draft of the Plan. We also are working to reach agreement with our State partners for implementation and management of the program.

 

One of the highest priorities of the Department is responsibility to Indian Tribes.  The long-awaited Animas-LaPlata project in Southwestern Colorado is under construction.  John Keys will talk about this effort in more depth tomorrow. 

 

The fact that Animas-LaPlata is finally under construction underscores our commitment to keeping promises.  The project satisfies the Colorado Ute Tribes= claims for reserved water rights.  This project was authorized by Congress in 1968, and then with considerable effort, reauthorized in 1988 and again in 2000.  This project also enhances economic development for the Tribes by having them take primary responsibility for constructing the project.

 

We are also trying to resolve longstanding issues over the Central Arizona Project  repayment and the Indian water rights settlements in much of Arizona.  We look forward to continuing to work with Senator Kyl, the CAWCD Board, the Gila River Indian Community and other Arizona Tribes, and others to bring these important matters to a mutually satisfactory resolution.  Bennett Raley will be leading important discussions with CAWCD representatives in this effort tomorrow.

 

We are also continuing to work on a number of other important issues that are linked to effective and efficient administration and management of the Colorado River.

 

Arizona and Nevada are working to finalize agreements on an innovative offstream water storage and banking arrangement.  Nevada would pay to have water stored underground in Arizona today.

 

In the future, when that water is needed, it can be recovered and used in Arizona, while Arizona forebears from diverting that amount of water from the River.  Meanwhile, Nevada would draw a like amount from the river, allowing both states to benefit.

 

This technique meets new and growing demand within the existing framework of the Law of the River, setting a precedent that undoubtedly will be a model for others throughout the arid West.

 

I have noted some important successes.  Stakeholders in the Colorado River Basin have demonstrated that long-time adversaries can come together and fashion collaborative efforts to reach common ends.

 

                ***

 

I mentioned before that the future of the Colorado River will be shaped by drought and population growth.  We no longer have abundant surpluses and full reservoirs.

 

The era of limits is upon us.

 

While wet and dry periods are cyclical, recent data suggests more drought planning is required.

 

We all know how much difficulty has been caused by the overly optimistic estimate of the annual flow by those who negotiated the Colorado River Compact 80 years ago.

 


Other factors counsel the importance of taking careful account of reliable scientific data, and projections about water supply.  While the amount of water available is relatively fixed, demand in the urban and industrial sectors will continue to grow.  Western states generally are growing at nearly double the national average.

 

California expects a population growth of 15 million people in the next 20 years.  More people use more water and the states will depend on the Colorado River for a major share of their water demands.

 

To accommodate these new arrivals, we need to make the smartest and most efficient use of the limited supplies of the River.  Innovative arrangements will need to be developed.  For such arrangements to succeed, they must be mutually-agreed-upon transactions within each respective Basin, and fully consistent with the Law of the River.

 

Arizona and Nevada provide one important model of the innovative use of off-stream storage. We will need to look for other such opportunities.

 

The Metropolitan Water District=s negotiations with the Palo Verde Irrigation District are an example of innovative thinking. They are using conservation contracts and dry-year options to accommodate temporary needs.  There will undoubtedly be new possibilities for conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies, where surplus water can be stored underground for future use.

 

We still have significant opportunities to use water more efficiently, both in the cities and in agriculture.  There are methods that can benefit urban residents, agricultural irrigators, and the environment in both the Upper and the Lower Basins.

 

Environmental water accounts in some river basins have provided a predictable mechanism for assuring fish needs can be met. 

 

It is also important to recognize that economic incentives have an important role to play.  Urban water users can often afford to help finance efficiency improvements that agriculture could not afford on its own.

 

We need to encourage these efforts while protecting the viability of agricultural communities and maintaining instream values such as recreation, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.

 

We have entered an era of constraint on the Colorado River-not only in water supply-but also in the fiscal resources available to us. Efficient use of limited resources will have to be the watchword.  Because of the sluggish economy and the need to provide for our homeland security, tighter budgets are going to be a fact of life for some time to come.   Partnerships can help us stretch our resources, and we welcome them.

 

In conclusion, I want to congratulate all of you who have worked so hard to bring us so far in resolving issues of the Colorado River Basin.  I urge you to bring the same energy and innovativeness to the pressing challenges that we still face.

 

Undoubtedly, the working relationships among the various stakeholders, and especially among the Basin States will provide the framework for renewed success.

 

I have a fundamental management precept for Interior: communication, consultation, and cooperation, in the service of conservation.  This has gone from theory to working reality on the Colorado River. 

 

Thank you.

               -end-