Nothing says “Utah” like an effort to subvert federal authority on matters relating to land or water. Take for example HJR9, the latest gesture by Beehive State lawmakers to force their will upon those pesky requirements of the Colorado River Compact. Of issue in HJR9 is the long divisive imbroglio about where states can physically use their allocations of water in the Upper and Lower reaches of the Colorado River Basin.
HJR9 targets the longstanding Compact considerations over the dividing line at Lees Ferry (sic) — which has long been the demarcation between the Upper and Lower Basin. Utah, like New Mexico and Arizona, has portions of the watershed in both the Upper and Lower regions of the Colorado River Watershed. There are strict requirements that Upper Basin water be used in the Upper Basin. And the same can be said for the waters flowing south of Lees Ferry in the Lower Basin. Congress must approve of doing otherwise.
The HJR9 language says that, notwithstanding those pesky considerations under federal law:
“…any basin state should be able to use the state’s Colorado River allocation at any location within the geographic boundaries of that state.”
This is Utah just being Utah. And, unfortunately, there are other signals on the Colorado River.
HB311 gives license for the Utah Water Agent to negotiate on water augmentation — pipelines, reservoirs, trans-basin diversions — involving the Colorado River and Bear River. In connection with HJR9, this opens up all kinds of possibilities for the Water Agent, which can operate in the shadows thanks to open records exemptions in state law. The bill looked a lot different at the beginning of session, dealing with somewhat benign water issues. But then lawmakers gutted it and added the Water Agent language that will further embolden Utah in its attempts to take more water away from the Colorado River System.
Tell Rep. Snider you oppose his bills: csnider@le.utah.gov
Lastly, there’s a recently released bill in Congress, HR302, from Utah Congresswoman Celeste Maloy. It poses many questions about how the federal government could manage resources during a time of crisis at Lake Mead. The genesis of the legislation was a now-resolved dispute between ski resorts in Colorado and the Forest Service more than a decade ago. The bill never passed Congress.
Today, the bill’s reintroduction raises the specter of uncertainty and highlights the delicate balance between state water law and federal engagement — an important dynamic for Upper Basin states, which does not have a federal water master managing water contracts. The Lower Basin, due to the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. California, does have a federal water master. On top of that, the federal government must waive its sovereign immunity on certain matters regarding state water law.
Since most of the Lower Basin’s water originates in the Upper Basin’s Rocky Mountains, it is important to think how a bill like this could impact management — for better or worse. One big question for us: How would this bill impact a Lower Basin compact call on the Upper Basin? Send us your thoughts.
See stories from Fox13 and 8 News Now.
