George Bernard Shaw once quipped, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” That could apply to the famous 2009 meeting between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Pope Benedict XVI, after which she reported that they discussed “poverty, hunger, and global warming.” The Pope, however, reported that he had politely but firmly admonished that her “pro-abortion politics” put her “in serious difficulties as a Catholic.” Several reporters openly wondered if the two had even been in the same meeting.
Similar skepticism might apply to the many divergent views of the newly adopted “Drought Contingency Plan” (DCP) for the Colorado River. It resulted from several years of meetings between the seven states in the river basin, various federal agencies, utilities, and numerous environmental organizations. Yet they all have dramatically different views of the carefully crafted deal.
Last month, Congress passed legislation ratifying the DCP agreement and President Trump signed it. All of the States, including Colorado, feel good about the settlement, which protects their water entitlements while preserving important flows. Yet if you wonder how different people can look at the same facts and reach entirely different conclusions, this is a doozey of an example.
The largest water user on the River, California’s Imperial Irrigation District (IID), has filed suit to stop implementation, claiming it might further shrink the Salton Sea – which has very little to do with the agreement. In fact, the Salton Sea’s very existence is the result of a disastrous canal failure in 1905, which inundated a town, a railroad, and much of an Indian reservation. “Saving” that man-made catastrophe from drying up is not the problem of Upper Basin States like Colorado. More to the point, it is not really what IID is upset about – they have been fighting for decades to preserve an old system that allowed their incredibly wasteful abuse of the Colorado River. For the new drought plan, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California even offered to cover IID’s contributions, so that California could agree to the deal. No matter, IID is suing anyway, which surely demonstrates an agenda that is not really about water.
At the same time, environmental groups are preparing challenges to the legal process. They claim the “hydrology has changed,” so that the DCP should have triggered an entire new environmental impact statement – to replace one done just over a decade ago. “Hydrology” is defined simply as the science of water, and its movement on land. However you define it, the “hydrology” of a major river system does not change that rapidly. In truth, these groups are upset at being denied the chance to make money by organizing public meetings, letter-writing campaigns, appeals, and lawsuits that drag the process out for years. That is their bread and butter.
The DCP is an agreement of states, consistent with the original Interstate Compact that regulates which states get how much water. It can be modified by mutual agreement, with congressional consent, as has been done here. The states have agreed to keep enough water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead to keep those vital reservoirs from “crashing” as water levels shrink precipitously during sustained droughts – without reducing their entitled shares of the river.
It is that last detail that really galls those who object to the current uses of that water, namely for cities, towns, businesses, farms and ranches. Environmental industry groups and university professors are complaining about being left out of the negotiations, an arrogance that is palpable. They are not party to the legal compact because nobody ever elected them to represent anybody. The states represent all their constituents, including environmental groups.
Finally, a few government scientists are talking about the importance of increased river flows to mosquitoes, caddisflies, and midges – and thus to fish. That brings us to the real issue – whether Lake Powell and Lake Mead will continue serving their purpose of storing water, to supply the allocations among states consistently. In fact, today’s lower reservoir levels are partly due to drought, but also to the government releasing water for fish, rather than storing it for people.
What we have here is not just “failure to communicate.” It is part of the ongoing struggle to balance environmental and human concerns. We care about both, and this new drought plan helps preserve that balance. As debate and litigation over it intensifies, keep wondering if all the players were even in the same meetings. If so, they certainly had different reasons for being there.
This column first appeared in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel May 10, 2019.
Comments on this entry are closed.