[lvoc]

The way western water law works it is those who use water first that have the rights to it. And this law of water extends over state boundaries. If the water does not get to CA they have the right to force newer users off the water...and this would extend even to water districts in Wyoming or Utah. It is the first user who has the legal right. And that is the nature of the Colorado River Compact. As initially established CA and its users basically had all the rights to the Colorado with none for upstream users. And that is what the compact fixed.

The great fear of reopening the compact is that there is actually well less water available than is allocated. So everyone loses in total. And do not underestimate the political pull of CA in such a dispute.

NV may sneak through such an endeavor relatively unscathed simply because of its low allocation. But the upper basin may well catch it. And it may get worse if some of the other actors get into the action.

[nickydim]

lvoc is right in that the Compact was to protect all the states to get their share.


The upper states are required to provide the lower states 7.5M acre feet every year(which splits the amount the colorado river puts out annually, 15M AF. That was established in 1922 when there wasn't the population and need there is today in the lower states. The Compact needs to reallocate a larger portion of the flow to the lower states and needs re-negotiation.

Originally Posted by Colorado River Compact

The compact divides the river basin into two areas, the Upper Division (comprising Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower Division (Nevada, Arizona and California). The compact requires the Upper Basin states not to deplete the flow of the river below 7,500,000 acre feet (9.3 km3) during any period of ten consecutive years. Based on rainfall patterns observed in the years before the treaty's signing in 1922, the amount specified in the compact was assumed to allow a roughly equal division of water between the two regions.

Since the upper states are required to provide a certain amount, I have to think it's not the sharing that's the problem, it's the amount required to share that's become the problem.

Maybe if they tied the allocation percents to population/agricultural percents, then over the next 100 years water allocation would go where it's needed most as the landscape of the Southwest changes.

Article 1:

The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters
of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water, to promote interstate
comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial
development of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. To
these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the
Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made.

Article 3:
There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River System in perpetuity to the Upper Basin and to the Lower
Basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include
all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist.
(b) In addition to the apportionment in paragraph (a), the Lower Basin is hereby given the right to increase its beneficial
consumptive use of such waters by one million acre-feet per annum.
(c) If, as a matter of international comity, the United States of America shall hereafter recognize in the United States
of Mexico any right to the use of any waters of the Colorado River System, such waters shall be supplied first from the waters
which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in paragraphs (a) and (b); and if such surplus shall
prove insufficient for this purpose, then, the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the Upper Basin and the
Lower Basin, and whenever necessary the States of the Upper Division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half
of the deficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d).

After reading the Compact, I tend to think the US Bureau of Reclamation controls all the major reservoirs in the upper basin.

[007 license to sell]

Here is the latest on what's happening with Lake Mead.

Click links below to view:

Water isn’t a worry when it comes to Las Vegas growth

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/water-isn-t-worry-when-it-comes-las-vegas-growth

• By JENNIFER ROBISON LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
• Jun 13 2015 - 7:45pm

[ev780]

Originally Posted by 007 license to sell

Here is the latest on what's happening with Lake Mead.

Click links below to view:

Water isn’t a worry when it comes to Las Vegas growth

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/water-isn-t-worry-when-it-comes-las-vegas-growth

• By JENNIFER ROBISON LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
• Jun 13 2015 - 7:45pm

Yet another stupid article that doesn't quite hit the mark in the distinction between water and water rights!! LV may have the rights to water but if I don't have a large pile of snow in my yard in Colorado you have the right to nothing.

[UTES]

Originally Posted by 007 license to sell

Here is the latest on what's happening with Lake Mead.

Keep in mind the RJ has a political agenda. I'm not saying the presentation is disingenuous, but one would be well served to view stances taken by the RJ with skepticism.

Bill

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by UTES

Keep in mind the RJ has a political agenda. I'm not saying the presentation is disingenuous, but one would be well served to view stances taken by the RJ with skepticism.

Bill

Exactly, sad isn't the way resident and local officials view the worsening drought? There is a reason why local water authorities built the third Intake beneath Lake Mead and are looking for other sources of water other than the Colorado River.

Just one look at Lake Mead and you know we have severe drought, I have seen Lake Mead full and the current level is just alarming.

[lvoc]

I generally don't agree politically with the RJ. But I have little trouble with their fact based reporting.

The water thing is simple. Las Vegas is in a privileged position by its location above the dam and its small requirement.

The great error made in the LV water supply was tunnel 2 not tunnel 3. An additional tunnel was necessary as Las Vegas was crucially dependent on a single resource and any of a number of natural or not disasters could cut off the water.

The error was that tunnel 2 was similar to tunnel 1 rather than tunnel 3. They built the wrong backup and had to do it over.

Las Vegas could also live off its ground water for a significant period. So a temporary disruption can be dealt with.

Las Vegas went after the up state water because it was a one shot only opportunity and was perfectly reasonable to western water law. Note that it can only work once. Than everybody in a water source possibly usable by Vegas claims it even if they have to drill, pump and raise alfalfa.

The great water consumer in LV is golf courses and grass landscaping not pools and lakes. The only really weird one was Lake Las Vegas. But they had water rights originally to Lake Mead.

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by lvoc

I generally don't agree politically with the RJ. But I have little trouble with their fact based reporting.

The water thing is simple. Las Vegas is in a privileged position by its location above the dam and its small requirement.

The great error made in the LV water supply was tunnel 2 not tunnel 3. An additional tunnel was necessary as Las Vegas was crucially dependent on a single resource and any of a number of natural or not disasters could cut off the water.

The error was that tunnel 2 was similar to tunnel 1 rather than tunnel 3. They built the wrong backup and had to do it over.

Las Vegas could also live off its ground water for a significant period. So a temporary disruption can be dealt with.

Las Vegas went after the up state water because it was a one shot only opportunity and was perfectly reasonable to western water law. Note that it can only work once. Than everybody in a water source possibly usable by Vegas claims it even if they have to drill, pump and raise alfalfa.

The great water consumer in LV is golf courses and grass landscaping not pools and lakes. The only really weird one was Lake Las Vegas. But they had water rights originally to Lake Mead.

Originally Posted by lvoc
That is actually pretty complicated. If you simply stored water in an aquifer you might pull it off. But if you draw on the aquifer as well it gets very complicated. The rule is that if you do not draw your allocation for five years you lose it. So if the net draw over some years is well less than what you have rights to it can be asserted that you have lost the right to the water you did not draw. SNWA will of course dispute this as they claim right to huge amounts of water stored in the aquifer beneath Las Vegas. But when they attempt to pump that water, if they ever do, they will get sued and may well lose. And in fact they will leave that water there rather than risk the battle unless under extreme duress.

So which one is it really? Where do you stand on this issue?

It's our water, we can store it in our aquifers and pump it when needed. It's our water allocation, we can use all of it or store some of it and other states can kiss my a$$.

[ScoopLV]

Which way is the wind blowing? What's on sale at Total Wine this week?

Seriously, asking for consistency is not a realistic expectation....

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Which way is the wind blowing? What's on sale at Total Wine this week?

Seriously, asking for consistency is not a realistic expectation....

LVOC posted two conflicting posts on the same subject!