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-