Necessity is the Mother
by C.V. Abacus
From Hidden Passage, the Journal of Glen Canyon
Institute
Volume V
"Art imitates Nature, and Necessity is the Mother of Invention."
-
Richard Franck,
Northern Memoirs, London, 1694
Over seventy-seven years ago, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover and
seven state Commissioners caused the colorado river compact to be "(d)one
at Santa Fe, New Mexico, the twenty-fourth day of November, a.d., One
thousand nine hundred and twenty-two." The introduction of that short
document, eleven articles of approximately 2000 words on eight
pamphlet-sized pages, follows:
The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under
the Act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August
19, 1921 (42 Statutes at Large, Page 171) and the Acts of the
Legislatures of the said States, have through their Governors appointed
as their Commissioners:
W. S. Norviel, for the State of Arizona
W. F. McClure, for the State of California
Delph E. Carpenter, for the State of Colorado
J. G. Scrugham, for the State of Nevada
Stephen B. Davis, Jr., for the State of New Mexico
R. E. Caldwell, for the State of Utah
Frank C. Emerson, for the State of Wyoming
who, after negotiations participated in by Herbert
Hoover appointed by The President as the representative of the United
States of America, have agreed upon the following articles …,"
summarized below:
Article I: Major purposes; division into two basins.
Article II: Definitions: Colorado River System; Colorado
River Basin; States of the Upper Division; States of the Lower Division;
Lee Ferry ("a point in the main stream of the Colorado River one mile
below the mouth of the Paria River"); Upper Basin; Lower Basin; and
domestic use ("shall include the use of water for household, stock,
municipal, mining, milling, industrial and other like purposes, but
shall exclude the generation of electrical power").
Article III: Apportionment
Article IV: Navigation
Article V: Cooperative data collection and reporting.
Article VI: Handling of claims or controversies.
Article VII: Obligations to Indian Tribes.
Article VIII: Present perfected rights.
Article IX: States’ legal guarantees.
Article X: Contract termination.
Article XI: How the compact becomes binding and
obligatory.
The focus of this discourse will be upon the language in
Article III (d): "The States of the Upper Division will not cause the
flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of
75,000,000 acre feet [75 maf] for any period of ten consecutive years
reckoned in continuing progressive series beginning with the first day
of October next succeeding the ratification of this compact."
An evaluation of the compact may be found in a 1926
Harvard PhD. thesis by Reuel Leslie Olson entitled The Colorado River
Compact. A hard-to-find reference work that is invaluable regarding
these topics is Milton N. Nathanson’s Updating the Hoover Dam Documents
(Denver: Bureau of Reclamation; 1978, 1980).
According to Nathanson, the Colorado River Storage
Project Act (CRSP, of 1956), which authorized the construction of Glen
Canyon Dam, provides that one of two major functions of the Project
Storage Units is "(t)o regulate streamflows so that water commitments to
the Lower Basin can be met in dry periods without curtailment of
development of water uses apportioned to the Upper Basin."
A concern promulgated by III (d) and CRSP is whether
Glen Canyon Dam is necessary to meet the commitment of delivering 75 maf,
or is the Colorado River capable of guaranteeing that delivery
naturally. Of course, this is an overly-simplistic view of the Compact
and the Law of the River. But my attempt, here, is microscopic in
intent. There are untold possible variations in data analysis; mine is
but one.
Other important and mandatory publications, listed in
the spread-sheet to develop the graph, are the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
series of Water Supply Papers (WSP), Surface Water Supply of the United
States, Part 9, Colorado River Basin. These list the data collected from
gages along the Colorado River and its tributaries. The Water Resources
Data for Arizona, Part 1, Surface Water Records succeeded the WSPs from
1971 to 1974 and are then continued from 1975 on as Water Resources Data
for Arizona, Water Year 1975, az-75-1; the National Technical
Information Service (ntis) also supplies copies under their own numbers,
usgs/wrd/hd-. Other states in the basin have similar documents, but for
the purpose of this discussion, Arizona’s is the only one needed.
In Water Year (WY) 1952 (WSP 1243), the USGS began
reporting runoff in acre-feet for "Colorado River at Compact point, near
Lees Ferry, Ariz." Under Remarks they state: "This point on the Colorado
River is the dividing point between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin, as
defined in the Colorado River Compact of 1922." The Compact defined "Lee
Ferry," which correlates directly as "Compact point." Under
Determination of discharge: "There is no gage. Monthly and yearly
discharge computed as the sum of flow at stations on Colorado River and
Paria River at Lees Ferry, Ariz." Complete year records for the Colorado
River began with WY 1922; for the Paria River, WY 1925. The graph shows
acre-feet added from the Colorado and Paria rivers from WY 1925 through
WY 1962. [Even without the Paria gage, the Colorado River’s annual
delivery was 16.28 maf, 16.24 maf, and 12.5 maf respectively in Water
Years 1922 through 1924.]
From WSP 1925, WY 1961-65, for gage "Lake Powell at Glen
Canyon Dam, Ariz.": "Remarks.--Reservoir is formed by concrete-arch
gravity dam; storage began Mar. 13, 1963; dam completed in September
1963… Reservoir is used… to meet downstream requirements under the
Colorado River Compact of 1922." Beginning with WY 1963, wsp’s reported
the acre-feet storage change in Lake Powell. Thus, the graph totals
volume from the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, the Paria River at Lees
Ferry, and the change in storage volume at Lake Powell, or the amount of
water delivered to Lee Ferry/Compact Point.
WSP 1119, WY 1948, and succeeding reports list "Transmountain
diversions from Colorado River Basin above Lees Ferry." Those have not
been charted here, as that is the scope of another evaluation; but they
vary from 150,000 to over 500,000 acre feet, not an unimportant amount.
However, it is interesting to note the following:
"In Colorado, the following twenty-one tunnels or
ditches, which are equipped with water stage recorders, are the total
transmountain diversions from the Colorado River Basin. Records
furnished by State engineer."
"In Utah there are 17 transmountain diversions from the
Colorado River Basin to the Great Basin and one from the Great Basin to
the Colorado River Basin. Records have been collected on only the
following of these diversions [Strawberry tunnel]."
"There are no transmountain diversions from the Colorado
River Basin above Lees Ferry in the States of Wyoming, New Mexico, and
Arizona."
Remember that the Compact calls for delivery of 75 maf
in any ten year period not 7.5 maf per year, as is most commonly stated.
However, graphs are presented here for both sets of data to show that
even though the River does not always deliver 7.5 maf annually, it has
always, in recorded time, delivered the 75 maf ten-year total called for
in the Compact. Lines have been drawn on both graphs showing these
amounts as well as 8.23 maf and 82.3 maf deliverables.
The 1944 Mexican Water Treaty calls for 1.5 maf annual
delivery to Mexico, split between the Upper and Lower basins. This .75
maf half, added to the 7.5 maf might appear to make the Upper Basin’s
amount be 8.25 maf. However, .02 maf of the Paria River’s annual average
has been subtracted, leaving 8.23 maf. "However, the Basin states do not
agree that this calculation is the reason for the 8.23 number, since it
infers a perpetual sharing of half the Mexican treaty obligation—the
Upper Basin states believe that there is ample water in Lower Basin
tributaries to take care of all treaty obligations." [Personal
communication, R. Peterson, Bureau of Reclamation, 01/24/2000.]
One might think that this calculated figure might be why
that number was chosen. Regardless of how it was determined, the 8.23
maf is a "Long-Range Operating Criterion" minimum annual release
objective; the minimum release has occurred in about half the years
since the dam was closed in 1963." [Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Summary, March 1999, 17-18.]
For the 38 year period of gage records, WY 1925 through
WY1962, at Compact Point/Lee Ferry, prior to the regulation of the
Colorado River by Glen Canyon Dam, the Colorado and Paria rivers
naturally delivered over 7.5 maf from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin
in 31 of those years, or 82% of the time. In no ten-consecutive-year
period did the River fail to deliver an aggregate of 75 maf of water as
required by the Compact, with the lowest being just under 100 maf.
For the 36 year period of gage records, WY 1963 through
WY 1998, at Compact Point/Lee Ferry, after the regulation of the
Colorado River by Glen Canyon Dam, the Paria River naturally delivered
and the Colorado River unnaturally delivered over 7.5 maf from the Upper
Basin to the Lower Basin in 27 of those years—75% of the time. Once
again, in no ten consecutive year period did the River fail to deliver
an aggregate of 75 maf of water as required by the Compact, with the
lowest being just under 87 maf.
Since the regulation of the Colorado River by Glen
Canyon Dam, the annual rate of 7.5 maf of deliverable water has dropped
from 82% to 75% (in the 70-year period of concern here, it has been just
over 77%).
[Might it be inferred that the construction of the dam
has decreased the River’s ability to deliver 7.5 maf annually?]
In conclusion, regarding just Article III (d) of the
Colorado River Compact, it appears that through WY 1998, Glen Canyon Dam
has been an unnecessary project in order to guarantee deliverable water
from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin: The Colorado River has, so far,
been able to deliver its own water with out man’s assistance. |
