Like the rest of the West, Colorado suffers from a
multi-year drought. Drought, in case you’re curious, is one of
those technical terms for what happens when you have enough water
for 1 million residents, but not enough for 4 million, let alone
the 10 million that the developers would like to see.
What might be even worse than the lawn-watering restrictions,
though, is the plethora of proposed solutions, which range from
cloud-seeding to importing train-loads of water from the Nebraska
Sandhills.
Among those proposals is a set of “water
principles” adopted by a group called “Colorado 64,” which is a
consortium of outfits like Club 20, Action 22, and Progressive 15,
which are in turn associations of neighboring counties which select
delegates who convene every so often for lobbying, socializing and
other noble purposes.
The new water principles, codified
earlier this year after lengthy discussion, contain all the proper
modern buzzwords, like “consensus” and “respect.” Who could find
fault with “the implementation of consensus-based water resource
solutions that respect local authorities”? Or with “maintaining the
proper stewardship of the land”? Or with “earnest efforts to find
water supply answers that benefit all Coloradans, for this and
future generations”?
In other words, these principles are
about as controversial as safe streets and neighborhood schools.
But there is a problem, and that is that they ignore the
traditional principles that have, for the last century or so,
pretty well defined water policy in the West. Thus it only seems
proper, if we’re going to adopt some New Water Principles, to
remember our Traditional Western Water Principles:
• Whenever there’s a water problem, it is always the fault of
California. When mountain streams are flooding, it’s because
California won’t let new dams be built in the Rockies. When the
mountain reservoirs are shrinking, it’s because California keeps
taking water it is supposed to get under the 1922 Colorado River
Compact. California is a safe party to blame, because it’s so big
and rich that nobody there needs to care what we say about it.
Besides, it’s a Democratic domain, and our Republican officials
need to blame somebody.
• In all water development,
the federal government should cover most of the cost, and
preferably the entire tab. After all, the Winning of the West has
been a national priority since about 1777, and there’s no reason to
stop now.
• No water project is ever built to
assist developers and subdividers. Even if they’re the ones who
will benefit the most, the official purpose will to benefit
hard-scrabble farmers, struggling ranchers or Native Americans.
• If there’s not enough water to serve new
developments, then current users should make sacrifices. In other
words, the more water you conserve, the more water that will be
available for big-box stores, shopping malls and sprawling suburbs.
These developments generally increase your cost-of-living and
reduce your quality-of-life, but you will be told that “we’re all
in this together” and you’ll be seen as rather churlish and
mean-spirited if you object to killing your last tree so that Vista
Heights Gated Golf-Course Community can continue selling lots.
• Any solutions to water-supply problems should
feature new structures (dams and reservoirs are best, but canals
and tunnels are acceptable) which can be named after their
political sponsors — i.e., Hoover Dam in Nevada, Alva Adams Tunnel
in Colorado, Theodore Roosevelt Dam in Arizona. Water projects need
political support, and it’s easier to get it with the imposing Sen.
Josiah R. Claghorn Dam and Reservoir than with the Claghorn-Smith
Instream Flow Protection Act of 2003. Construction can confer a
degree of immortality on a public servant. It also shows the
constituents that they’re getting their fair share from the pork
barrel, and that’s important, especially in election years.
Those are the principal principles that have guided
Western water development over the years, and it seems odd that
they were not addressed by the people who came up with the new and
improved water principles.
But on the other hand, that
could be because no one has ever figured out how to repeal the
supreme law of our hydrology, first articulated by John A. Love, a
Republican who served as governor of Colorado from 1963 to 1973:
“Water flows uphill to money.”
Ed Quillen is a
contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High
Country News in Paonia, Colorado (hcn.org). He is a
regular columnist for the Denver Post and lives
in Salida, Colorado.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
