© 2000 Streamline Publications
COLORADO RIVER WATER
Nevada and Arizona have gained new rights that will
affect the amount of Colorado River water that California receives.
[See Ignoring Limits of Water Use, Part
I and Part II
and Water Shortages
here on the Albright web siteBest of LEAF-letor
in March/April and May/June 1998 and January/February 1999,
respectively, printed LEAF-let.]
Colorado River water was apportioned early in this century among
western states and Mexico. The Arizona and Nevada shares were mostly
unused because populations were small andat least in Arizonas
casetransportation of the water from its source to population
centers was a problem. The water that was excess to the states
immediate needs was allowed to be used by downstream states in
addition to their allotments. In practical terms that meant that in
addition to its own share, Californias larger population and
irrigation needs were supplemented with unclaimed Nevada and Arizona
river rights.
The Governments Voice
In October 1999, Bruce Babbitt, U.S. Interior Secretary and the
legal master of the river, decreed that management of the
Colorado Rivers flow would change. Upstream states, whose needs
still have not reached their allotment amount, would be allowed to
bank the difference.
That will have a significant and immediate impact on the supplies
that the Metropolitan Water District has come to rely onthe
800,000 acre feet from the Colorado that has for decades encouraged
and supported Californias burgeoning growth in the south.
OWENS VALLEYMONO LAKE
In 1913 the Los Angeles Aqueduct began supplying water to the city,
spurring growth in the San Fernando Valley. The Owens Valley dried up
as its traditional source of waterEastern Sierra annual runoffwas
diverted to the southern population. Yet, by the late 1920s it became
apparent that this was still not enough water and plans were laid to
acquire land and water rights that would sidetrack Mono Lake
replenishment water to the aqueduct for transport south. Water
diversion began in 1940. In 1941 the lake began to get smaller. The
annual loss of half of the water that would have kept the lake at a
stable level began and continued for 30 years.
In 1970 the southward flow was increased to double and the lakes
depth began a rapid declineup to a few feet a year. The
ecological changes were dramatic. Salinity increased, wildlife
habitats were destroyed and the eerie tufa towersnatural
calcium carbonate constructionsbecame visible as water receded.
The lawsuits began with the National Audubon Society. Additional
suits and LA Department of Water and Power countersuits made their way
through the courts. Meanwhile, a few wet years provided more water
than the DWP could siphon off. The streams began to flow again and
fish reappeared. The number of defenders interested in all manner of
ecological preservation increased.
By this time, Mono Lake had a water line lowered by 40 feet.
In response to the consolidation of the lawsuits and the courts
request for a recommendation, the state Water Resources Control Board
devised a plan that would address the interests of all, and
particularly the lake and its inhabitants.
DWP has been forced to reduce its water take and the lake has
recently risen 10 feet. Once the newly established water line target
level is reached water exports may only include that which is not
needed to maintain the lake.
The Response
Far from being a death knell for Los Angeles, the reduced water flow
from the lake has been more than offset by conservation and water-use
efficiencies.
Whether these strategies will be enough to deal with Colorado River
losses and other-source shortfalls while the population achieves
projected increases remains to be seen. As a finite resource, the lack
of water may itself be the limiting factor in growth prognostications.
Without water to support a larger population and the housing and
industry it needssustained growth is unlikely.
Regardless, California water will require intelligent management and
innovative strategies in the new century.
Download
the Albright Seed Catalog as an Acrobat PDF file now
pdf
catalog download (55K) (requires
Acrobat
Reader)