Glen Canyon

[SAJ-99]

The pact doesn’t expire, just the 2007 interim guidelines and subsequent agreements. Which would just push management back to 1970s rules which still favors the upper basin, IMO. The BOR wouldn’t allow management under those 70s rules, which is what’s going to drive it to court. Somebody like Togie might know more and correct me.

Yes, I might have been a little too flippant. There was an agreement in 2023 that created some deadline for end of 2026. That seems like just a kick-the-can kind of thing. If this winter continues as it has, they will be fighting over nothing. It just seems crazy that as a society we still choose to use water on golf courses rather than on farm fields and classify requirements for low-flow utilities as being "woke".

 

[TOGIE]

The pact doesn’t expire, just the 2007 interim guidelines and subsequent agreements. Which would just push management back to 1970s rules which still favors the upper basin, IMO. The BOR wouldn’t allow management under those 70s rules, which is what’s going to drive it to court. Somebody like Togie might know more and correct me.

Yeah the Compact doesn't expire.

And I'm not the steeped expert like several of my co workers. It is the 2007 Interim Guidelines expiring this year and BOR just released the Draft EIS for Post 2026 Operating Guidelines. It's these guidelines that outline how the Basins/states will agree to operate in shortages. My cursory research shows the Post 2026 Draft proposing much steeper cuts and on a system wide basis, not just based on Lake Mead and the Lower Basin. They're kinda getting this ball rolling on their own with no agreement having been reached, so there won't be any falling back on the 1970's rules.

The current deadline for Upper/Lower negotiations is the 14th. And, who knows, they may be given another deadline after that as the Interim Guidelines expire at the end of the year.

If negotiations fail the BOR will go ahead and ram through the new Post 2026 Guidelines and then the states will most certainly start suing each other on the merits of the compact to get what they want instead.

At least that's my best understanding.

 

[elkduds]

I mean, you and SAJ are alluding to the same thing.

However, the Compact is a congressionally ratified interstate treaty; it's not just some "agreement" and I would expect SCOTUS to treat it as such. The faulty hydrology used in the Compact and whether or not the expected production of the Colorado River was a wise estimate isn't the question that will be before SCOTUS.

Certainly, an agreement on cuts could be reached to prevent a legal battle on the merits of the Compact, but we're more or less past that point now. We'll see.

As far as water use being predominantly Ag in the upper basin? That's basically true anywhere you pull up water use statistics. And, we can all spend a minute or two googling the Imperial Valley if we want...

My current perception of SCOTUS is far less optimistic.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yes, I might have been a little too flippant. There was an agreement in 2023 that created some deadline for end of 2026. That seems like just a kick-the-can kind of thing. If this winter continues as it has, they will be fighting over nothing. It just seems crazy that as a society we still choose to use water on golf courses rather than on farm fields and classify requirements for low-flow utilities as being "woke".

Water rights in the west are more akin to home ownership than county zoning. "We" don't have much say in how you exercise your water rights, as long as you follow the law. I, as an active water right practitioner, both professionally and personally, support the existing system as is. It's a vestigate of freedom that I'm not willing to give up. I see no reason why anyone would want a WY farmer to give up his livelihood so that Black Rock can pave over more desert around Vegas.

 

[SAJ-99]

Water rights in the west are more akin to home ownership than county zoning. "We" don't have much say in how you exercise your water rights, as long as you follow the law. I, as an active water right practitioner, both professionally and personally, support the existing system as is. It's a vestigate of freedom that I'm not willing to give up. I see no reason why anyone would want a WY farmer to give up his livelihood so that Black Rock can pave over more desert around Vegas.

The only point of disagreement is that something has to change because we are getting to the point where the demand for water exceeds the supply.
There are hard choices ahead.

 

[TOGIE]

The only point of disagreement is that something has to change because we are getting to the point where the demand for water exceeds the supply.
There are hard choices ahead.

We're long past that point.

And pain will no doubt be felt.

I do like to think the states will come to some agreement. I think everyone benefits from Compact ambiguity. SCOTUS has never had to insert itself into the Colorado River Compact and getting components of the Compact permanently adjudicated/clarified could sting more than negotiated cuts. Who knows

The ironic blessing is this horrific winter we're having - if we had a booner snow year it would likely just result in more can kicking.

 

[Chama Grande]

My lower basin buddy sent me that article last night and I got a little flippant with him too lol. I told him 'if anyone is looking for Lake Mead it's buried in the deserts of Arizona AMA's'. He said 'that was our allocation, and we operated within the law'. And he's right, they did do that. But I did remind him that New Mexico has never once received our full allocation, so what a luxury that must be.

Physical reality lives relentlessly in the real world. We will hit the wall. But if the fact that the lower basin can't sustain itself on the lofty numbers ascribed to it in the 1922 compact while the upper basin uses like half that, and still the upper needs to contribute, is some logic I don't understand.

 

[TOGIE]

Physical reality lives relentlessly in the real world. We will hit the wall. But if the fact that the lower basin can't sustain itself on the lofty numbers exceeding the value ascribed to it in the 1922 compact while the upper basin uses like half that, and still the upper needs to contribute, is some logic I don't understand.

lemme fix that

 

[Irrelevant]

The only point of disagreement is that something has to change because we are getting to the point where the demand for water exceeds the supply.
There are hard choices ahead.

We need houses too. Are you going to take mine and give it to someone else?

Water is a public resource. The use of water is not.

 

[SAJ-99]

We need houses too. Are you going to take mine and give it to someone else?

Water is a public resource. The use of water is not.

Not sure I get the comparison.