McCain v Water

Water, kind of essential for life, has become a central theme in Colorado and the surrounding region following McCain's remarks and Romney's follow-up.

The Colorado River Compact, signed in 1922, is one of the few issues in this campaign older than McCain himself. It states simply that those states in the Upper Basin, where the water starts, must provide water at a rate of 7.5 million acre feet per year to the Lower Basin, to ensure that both halves get approximate equal amounts of water.

This puts Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico in the water-rich Upper Basin; California, Arizona and Nevada are in the dryer Lower Basin. The project allowed for irrigation of the Southwest and was pivotal to the development in the area.

Recently, it's been found that, well, there's less rain than there is supposed to be. It is hypothesized that the compact was forged during a time of heavy rain and the actual rainfall is somewhere between 13 and 14 million acre feet per year. Now that there's less rain, there's less river.   Some tensions have understandably arisen, but a 2007 arrangement that allows for states to undertake water projects had alleviated some concern.

Then, along came John McCain:

"I don't think there's any doubt the major, major issue is water and can be as important as oil. So the compact that is in effect, obviously, needs to be renegotiated over time amongst the interested parties," McCain said while on his way to the Aspen Institute.

Ken Salazar respectfully disagreed:

"Senator McCain's position on opening up the Colorado River Compact is absolutely wrong and would only happen over my dead body," Salazar said. "It's an anathema to the fundamental principles of Colorado's water rights and our compacts."

The Denver Post was similarly restrained:

We don't vote for water rustlers in this state; we tar and feather them!

Some of the problem resides in the fact that McCain's state, Arizona, is in the Lower Basin. As such, any renegotiation could result in water being redirected to Arizona, especially from Colorado and Utah. Considering that water in the region is scarce (see: drought), an additional water grab doesn't show particular political savvy in the  region.

Now, however, one more voice has risen up against the Colorado River Compact renegotiation. It's Mitt Romney, performing a poor imitation of a ventriloquist, attempting to soothe over thirsty Coloradans:

"Senator McCain has no interest in reopening the compact," Romney said today. "Senator McCain believes as I do that a compact that's been worked out between the governors and between the states is the right way to go."

Hmmm... Let's see:

So the compact that is in effect, obviously, needs to be renegotiated over time amongst the interested parties
Senator McCain has no interest in reopening the compact

If John McCain doesn't speak for John McCain, who does?



Display:


Be back in the morning! (none / 0)

Wikipedia is fun and all, until you realize it's 1:30 in the morning and you're reading about the Montana Rail Link instead of the Colorado River Compact fact-checking you thought you were doing.

But, seriously, with the convention in Denver, being from Arizona, in the middle of a drought... Why would McCain even touch a subject like this?


by TCQuad on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:35:24 AM EST

Re: McCain v Water (none / 0)

If John McCain doesn't speak for John McCain, who does?

What a great way to phrase one of the primary tactics of the campaign.
"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:39:11 AM EST

Re: McCain v Water (none / 0)

McCain should be skewered with his comment but I do think it is inevitable the existing compact will sooner rather than later need to be revisited.

First, draws under the compact are not sustainable, particularly given that the west is leaving a 100-year period of unprecedented wetness and returning to a long-term norm of much greater aridity (Connie A. Woodhouse & Jonathan T. Overpeck, "2000 years of drought variability in the central United States," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 79(12), 1998, pp. 2693-2715).  This fact does not include ecological damages as factors; this is just that the absolute amount of water is declining even as demand continues to skyrocket.

Second, Mexico has been denied their share of the waters of the Colorado and this I feel will not and should not forever stand.

Third, a broad array of American Indian tribes that have to date not received their water rights under long-standing precedents, dating to US v. Winters and reaffirmed many times, are suing  and they are very likely to win in many cases.  The current compact promises tribes nothing.

McCain wants to renegotiate the pact to deliver more water to his desert-dwelling constituents.  That's wrong and should be used to wring his neck.

But the compact and current allocations will be changed whether folks want that or not.


"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:31:23 AM EST

Re: McCain v Water (none / 0)

It's one thing to look at how water is allocated, like in 2007.

It's also possible to alter the interpretation, to allow for half and half distribution. But altering the pact on the whole is another situation altogether.

Aaccording to the Republican Schaffer:

"The compact is the only protection Colorado has from several more politically powerful downstream states," Schaffer added. "Opening it for renegotiation would be the equivalent of a lamb discussing with a pack of wolves what should be on the dinner menu."

I'm not sure how Mexico or the tribal regions lawsuits will play out, but you're right when you say McCain's goal was protecting Arizona's interests at the expense of the Upper Basin. While the point swing in Utah won't swing it blue, the Colorado race was already tight.


by TCQuad on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:43:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.