[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 334-335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW OF THE RIVER

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the beginning of the 108th Congress marks 
a pivotal moment in the management of one of the most complex water 
systems in the world. Complex both hydrologically and legally, the 
river is managed through a series of agreements that are collectively 
known as the ``law of the river.'' and it is the ``law of the river'' 
that brings me to the floor today.
  For years, the State of California has consumed far more than its 
annual allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado 
River. Instead, the State has pursued a path of overuse--often drawing 
more than 1 million acre-feet of water a year over its allocation. With 
the turn of the new year, and just as Colorado enters the

[[Page 335]]

fourth year of the most severe drought in 300 years, I am pleased that 
Secretary Norton and the Department of the Interior have taken strong 
action to force California into compliance with the decades-old 
agreements that dictate the amount of water that the State is entitled 
to consume, thereby ending its abuse of the river. This watershed 
decision to enforce the 4.4 million acre-feet allocation reveals a 
welcome determination to ensure confidence in the law through decisive 
action, demonstrating to all parties that abuse of the ``law of the 
river'' will not be tolerated.
  ``The law of the river'' has evolved over 80 hard fought years; every 
precious drop of the river means life or death to the people of the 
basin States. Secretary Norton has now made it clear that every party 
to the compact will be held accountable, and that these agreements will 
stand as precious as the water itself. No longer will States be able to 
ignore the ``law of the river.''
  In Colorado, our citizens must abide by the doctrine of prior 
appropriations. Other States govern water under a hybrid or riparian 
rights system. These time-tested theories have one constant principle--
a user cannot take more water than its legal share. This strong 
sentiment is reflected in a recent Denver Post editorial that I would 
like to share with you today. I ask unanimous consent that the article 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALLARD. California has had ample opportunity to meet its legal 
obligation; agreements outlining baby steps toward compliance with the 
4.4 limit have been in existence since the 1990's. Even though the 
State has consumed far more than its fair share for years, it has had 
plenty of opportunity to live within its allocation. Yet in the end, 
with the water shutoff, I hope California will recognize its legal 
obligations.
  To Secretary Norton and my colleagues from the basin States, I urge 
you to continue to force all members to abide by their allocation and 
to protect the law. Secretary Norton's fair action has demonstrated 
that this administration will uphold the ``law of the river,'' and when 
the law is not adhered to, those in violation will be held accountable.
  I have remained in close contact with Colorado Governor Bill Owens 
throughout the ordeal, and would like to share with you an insightful 
comment made by the Governor in a conversation we had shortly after the 
decision to shut off the water was announced Governor Owens said, ``In 
the West, our word is our bond. As Colorado suffers from the worst 
drought in its history, we cannot and will not support so-called 
`surplus' water deliveries to California, unless California keeps its 
word to us.'' I certainly agree.
  I commend the Secretary for her action, and hope this will serve as a 
clarion call that the law of the river is indeed a law that must be 
obeyed.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Denver Post, January 4, 2003]

                          The Law of the River

       Nevada shouldn't be surprised. Two weeks ago, U.S. Interior 
     Secretary Gale Norton said California couldn't take more than 
     its legal share of Colorado River water. This week, she told 
     Nevada the same thing. Her actions were proper. All seven 
     states that share the river and tributaries must abide by the 
     Colorado River Interstate Compact, the 80-year-old agreement 
     known as ``the law of the river.''
       California hogs 5.2 million acre-feet of river water a 
     year, far more than its legal share of 4.4 million acre-feet.
       But Nevada has been slurping more than its share, too. The 
     pact entitles Nevada to 300,000 acre-feet annually, but it 
     uses an extra 37,00 acre-feet a year, or 11 percent over its 
     legal share.
       California had wanted Norton to declare a surplus of water 
     in the Colorado River, thus letting it continue using more 
     than its legal allotment. But such a declaration would have 
     been absurd during an ongoing, record-breaking drought.
       After telling California ``no,'' Norton had to apply the 
     same standard to other states. Although Nevada's excess water 
     use is a drop in the bucket compared to California's wastrel 
     ways, Nevada also must follow the law of the river.
       Colorado doesn't use its entire share of river water, 
     however. The river flows on the Western Slope, but our 
     population lives mostly on the Front Range. The dispute is 
     over preserving Colorado water rights for future generations.
       Colorado is supposed to get 51.75 percent of the river's 
     water. The interstate pact assumed the Colorado River would, 
     on average, flow 7.5 million acre-feet a year. But the pact 
     was signed during an exceptionally wet era in the West, so it 
     overestimated how much water the river usually has. Still, 
     the optimistic scenario entitled Colorado to 3.85 million 
     acre-feet of river water in an average year.
       In reality, the Colorado River averages about 6 million 
     acre-feet a year, allowing Colorado 3.1 million acre-feet 
     under the formula.
       But Colorado consumes only 2.65 million acre-feet from the 
     river in a normal year. So, depending on how the river's 
     average flows are calculated, Colorado lets 500,000 to 1.2 
     million acre-feet of its share flow out of state. Much of 
     that water supplies vegetable farms and fruit orchids in 
     California's agriculturally rich Imperial Valley.
       To recapture its lost water, Colorado leaders have floated 
     ideas to build new dams or pump thousands of acre-feet from 
     the Utah line to metro Denver. But any of the plans would 
     cost billions of dollars and create ecological woes.
       If Colorado's population continues growing, our state 
     someday will claim its share of Colorado River water. When it 
     does, California and Nevada could rightly demand that 
     Colorado and other upper-basin states--Wyoming, Utah, 
     Arizona, and New Mexico--follow the pact's strict limits, 
     too.
       The law of the river must be enforced, for everyone. And 
     water conservation must become a way of life in the West.
  Mr. ALLARD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________