The Colorado River: Lifeline Of

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Colorado River: Lifeline Of 4 The Colorado River: lifeline of the American Southwest Clarence A. Carlson Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 80523 Robert T. Muth Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 80523 1 Carlson, C. A., and R. T. Muth. 1986. The Colorado River: lifeline of the American Southwest. Can. J. Fish. Aguat. Sci. In less than a century, the wild Colorado River has been drastically and irreversibly transformed into a tamed, man-made system of regulated segments dominated by non-native organisms. The pristine Colorado was characterized by widely fluctuating flows and physico-chemical extremes and harbored unique assemblages of indigenous flora and fauna. Closure of Hoover Dam in 1935 marked the end of the free-flowing river. The Colorado River System has since become one of the most altered and intensively controlled in the United States. Many main-stem and tributary dams, water diversions, and channelized river sections now exist in the basin. Despite having one of - the most arid drainages in the world, the present-day Colorado River supplies more water for consumptive use than any river in the United States. Physical modification of streams and introduction of non-native species have adversely impacted the Colorado's native biota. This paper treats the Colorado River holistically as an ecosystem and summarizes current knowledge on its ecology and management. "In a little over two generations, the wild Colorado has been harnessed by a series of dams strung like beads on a thread from the Gulf of California to the mountains of Wyoming. The living river that Powell knew has been sec- tioned into placid desert lakes throughout much of its length, and the river's primordial task of carrying the massif of the Colorado Plateau to the sea, bit by grainy bit, has been interrupted, and will remain interrupted for the lifetimes of our children's children and beyond." - Watkins (1969, p 165) 2 Despite years of study, the Colorado River has rarely been viewed holistically as an ecosystem (sensu Minshall et al. 1985), and much informa- tion on its biota is available only in "gray" literature. We welcome this opportunity to summarize current knowledge on what has been called the most used, dramatic, and highly litigated and politicized river in the United States, if not the world (Fradkin 1981). The Colorado heads on the Never Summer side of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, and flows 2320 km to the Gulf of California in Mexico (Fig. 1). The Green River, which joins the Colorado in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, originates in the Wind River Range of southwestern Wyoming, 2735 km above the Gulf of California. As Madson (1985) suggested that the Upper Mississippi is a tributary of the Missouri River, a case can be made for considering the Mainstem Upper Colorado (called the Grand River until 1921) a tributary of the Green River. The Colorado's drainage basin encompasses 632,000 km2 in the United States and Mexico (Plummer 1983) and ranges in elevation from sea level to 1450 m (Miller et al. 1983). It occupies one-twelfth of the land area of the United States. The upper basin (above Lee Ferry, Compact Point in Fig. 1) consists of the Green (115,800 km2), Upper Mainstem (68,600 km2), and San Juan (99,200 km2) sub-basins (Carlson and Carlson 1982). Sub-basins in the lower basin are the Little Colorado (67,000 km2), Virgin (28,500 km2), Bill Williams (14,000 1cm2), and Gila (145,000 km2) (Sykes 1937). Conditions in the basin were reviewed by LaRue (1916), Sykes (1937), Iorns et al. (1965), Bishop and Porcella (1980), Carlson and Carlson (1982), Graf (1985), and Stanford and Ward (1986). 3 The Colorado River drainage spans three geologic provinces: Rocky Mountains, Colorado Plateau, and Basin and Range (Hunt 1974; Graf 1985). Igneous and metamorphic rock underly the headwaters region, but the river contacts marine deposits containing salts and fine-grained sediments as it flows downstream (Miller et al. 1983). As the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau emerged from the Cretaceous sea during the Laramide Orogeny of the early Tertiary, lakes of the northern Plateau received small streams draining the western slope of the new Rockies (Hunt 1969). With time, the lakes filled with sediment and overflowed to the south as the Colorado Plateau tilted. New pondings developed farther south, ancestors of today's upper- basin streams converged from the east, and the present northern Colorado River drainage was established by the end of the Miocene. Hunt (1969) believed that the lower Colorado River in the Basin and Range Province was an estuary of the Gulf of California in Miocene and Pliocene time and that a drainage from the Colorado Plateau must have joined it by then. McKee et al. (1967) suggested that the ancestral Colorado River flowed southward and southeastward along the present course of the Little Colorado River in Oligocene and Miocene time to an inland sea (Lake Bidahochi) in northeastern Arizona. Streams of the Hualapai Drainage System on the western flank of the Kaibab Upwarp extended their channels in an upstream (south- easterly) direction during the Pliocene and encountered the ancestral Colorado, which was diverted westward across the upwarp to form the modern drainage pattern through the Grand Canyon. About 150 m of canyon deepening occurred during the Quaternary throughout most of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau (Hunt 1969). This region was lowered about 3.2 km by the Colorado River System since the middle Oligocene. Major geologic strata underlying the basin were summarized by Stanford and Ward (1986). 4 Human occupation of the Colorado's canyon country dates back 4000 yr. Agricultural Anasazi, Fremont, Moholon and Hohokan cultures flourished at various times into the 1200s, then declined, perhaps in part through over-exploitation of natural resources. They were succeeded by their descen- dants (Hopi, Taos, Zuni, and Pima-Papago) and immigrant Navaho, Apache, Southern Paiute, Havasupai, and Hualapai people (Watkins 1969; Barnes and Pendleton 1979; Fradkin 1981; Graf 1985). Spanish explorers in search of riches encountered the lower Colorado River in 1540 (LaRue 1916; Dellenbaugh 1902). New Spain was subsequently established in the American Southwest, and new explorers set forth in search of religious converts and a route to California. The river was given several names before Father Kino applied the name 'Colorado' on a 1705 map of his passage westward (Bolton 1919; Hughes 1967). Members of Father Escalante's 1776 expedition were the first Euro- peans to encounter the Green River (Crampton 1952). Trappers continued exploration of the canyon country in the early 1800s; William Ashley's party first navigated the upper Green River in 1825 (LaRue 1916; Watkins 1969). Mormon colonizers established towns along the river, and John Lee was sent by church leaders to establish a crossing below Glen Canyon (Fradkin 1981; Rusho and Crampton 1981). Lee's ferry site has played a prominent role in the law of the river. The lower Colorado was navigated by commercial steamships and the U.S. Army in the 1850s (Lingenfelter 1978). John Wesley Powell's scientific investigations of the Colorado began in 1869, when he floated from Green River, Wyoming, through the Grand Canyon. In documenting this and a second expedition begun in 1871, Powell shattered many myths regarding commercial development of the Colorado basin and established a basis for federal science in the United States (Stegner 1982 ; Rabbitt 1969). 5 Watkins (1969) and Fradkin (1981) have contributed excellent comprehen- sive reviews of subsequent Colorado River history. Many human activities have drastically altered the river ecosystem, but none has been more signifi- cant than construction of high dams on the mainstream river. The first of these (Hoover Dam) was closed in 1935, marking the demise of the free- flowing Colorado. Stanford and Ward (1986) noted that the natural character of the river was determined about 8000 yr ago and was intact until 1935. In the remainder of this report, we summarize the status of the Colorado River ecosystem prior to 1935, human manipulation of the river, and the current condition and future of the river system and its biota. The Colorado River before 1935 Prior to 1935, the Colorado flowed essentially unchecked from its sources to the sea, ending in a 'live delta' of meandering streams, silt, and shifting land patterns (Hundley 1966). Then, as now, much of its basin consisted of relatively barren deserts. High relief, sparse vegetation, and desert storms combined with montane snowmelt to produce spectacular vari- ations in discharge (Minckley 1979). Flows at Yuma, Arizona, ranged from near zero to over 7,000 m3/s (U.S. Geological Survey 1975). Mean annual virgin flow from the upper basin during the past four centuries was 16.65 1cm3 (Weatherford and Jacoby 1975; Welsh 1985). The upper basin produced most of the river's discharge, and peak flows occurred after snowmelt in spring and early suaner (Bishop and Porcella 1980). Maximum runoff in the lower basin often followed winter rainstorms (Sykes 1937). Lowest discharge typically occurred in mid to late summer, but long periods of low flows accompanied droughts. 6 At times of moderate flows and during droughts, the river ran clear, but sediment transport was remarkably high during floods. Dolan et al. (1974) noted that maximum sediment transport in the Grand Canyon before closure of Glen Canyon Dam was 25 million t on 13 September 1927 at a discharge of 3540 m3/s. Except where the river breached hard-rock barriers, bottoms must have continuously shifted as bedload was transported (Minckley 1979). Unstable flows and other conditions resulted in arroyo cutting in small and medium- sized streams before the arrival of technologically advanced human cultures, and floods and droughts resulted in alternating braided and meandering channels over time (Graf 1985).
Recommended publications
  • Trait Ridge Road Guide
    Sign No. 9 Medicine Bow Curve (11,640 feet) succeeded more than 80 years ago in bringing water from Never The sign here points northwest to the Medi­ Summer streams through the Grand Ditch and La Poudre Pass Rocky Mountain National Park cine Bow Mountains which extend into Wyo­ to irrigate the semiarid lands east of the Rockies. He failed to 9 ming, 44 miles away. The Cache la Poudre find sufficient precious metals in Lulu City diggings to establish River twists through the glacial gorge before profitable mines. Broken stone chimneys and rotting founda­ you, separating this point from rounded, tion logs are all that remain of this once bustling mining camp. v 7 This country is also a favorite home of the beaver. Trait Ridge brownish Specimen Mountain to the west. Its color provides a clue to the mountain's orgin, Sign No. 12 Shadow Mountain National as a volcano, and the cliffs at Iceberg Lake Recreation Area are of lava from this source. Shadow Mountain Lake and Lake Granby Road Guide Sign No. 10 Continental Divide, Milner Pass are two reservoirs of the Colorado — Big (10,758 feet) 12 Thompson Project, built and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Surprise! You thought the Continental Divide \ 7 the Interior. From here water flows through would be the highest point on your trip. But Grand Lake and the 13.1-mile Adams Tunnel this delightful spot where an undecided rain­ to Estes Park. There, east of the Continental drop might flow either to the Atlantic or to \10/ Divide, it stairsteps down through penstocks the Pacific is more than a thousand feet below and turbines producing electric power and finally emptying into the Alpine Visitor Center, and 1,425 feet be- reservoirs and irrigation canals east of the Front Range.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald Eagle in Arizona
    CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY FOR THE BALD EAGLE IN ARIZONA James T. Driscoll, Arizona Game and Fish Department Kenneth V. Jacobson, Arizona Game and Fish Department Greg Beatty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jorge S. Canaca, Biologist John G. Koloszar, Biologist Technical Report 173 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 July 2006 Photo by B. Taubert CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 And The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Office of the Deputy Director at the address listed above or by calling (602) 789-3290 or TTY 1-800-367-8939.
    [Show full text]
  • The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?
    COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, or the Vestige oF a Failed Past? Liam Patton* Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 42 I. THE EVOLUTION OF HYDROPOWER ON THE COLORADO PLATEAU ..... 45 A. Hydropower and the Development of Pumped Storage .......... 45 B. History of Dam ConstruCtion on the Plateau ........................... 48 C. Shipping ResourCes Off the Plateau: Phoenix as an Example 50 D. Modern PoliCies for Dam and Hydropower ConstruCtion ...... 52 E. The Result of Renewed Federal Support for Dams ................. 53 II. HYDROPOWER AS AN ALLY IN THE SHIFT TO CLEAN POWER ............ 54 A. Coal Generation and the Harms of the “Big Buildup” ............ 54 B. DeCommissioning Coal and the Shift to Renewable Energy ... 55 C. The LCR ProjeCt and “Clean” Pumped Hydropower .............. 56 * J.D. Candidate, 2021, University oF Colorado Law School. This Note is adapted From a final paper written for the Advanced Natural Resources Law Seminar. Thank you to the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review staFF For all their advice and assistance in preparing this Note For publication. An additional thanks to ProFessor KrakoFF For her teachings on the economic, environmental, and Indigenous histories of the Colorado Plateau and For her invaluable guidance throughout the writing process. I am grateFul to share my Note with the community and owe it all to my professors and classmates at Colorado Law. COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 42 Colo. Nat. Resources, Energy & Envtl. L. Rev. [Vol. 32:1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLATEAU HYDROPOWER ...............
    [Show full text]
  • Imperial Dam/All American Canal Projects Update-2021
    Imperial Dam/All American Canal Projects Update-2021 David Escobar General Superintendent, Operations & Maintenance AAC/River Division May 19, 2021 www.iid.com www.iid.com 2 www.iid.com 3 Executive Summary • Imperial Dam is primarily a concrete slab and buttress structure on the Colorado River located approximately 18 northeast of Yuma, Arizona. The Dam was constructed between 1936 and 1938 by Reclamation to impound water for irrigation. • The Dam’s overall length is approximately 3,479 feet. The sections of the Dam consist of the California abutment, the All American Canal (AAC) Headworks, the California Sluiceway, the overflow weir (spillway) section, the Gila Canal Headworks, and the Arizona abutment. www.iid.com 4 Projects List • Imperial Dam Roller Gates 1 through 4 Overhaul completed in 2018, total project cost-$2,955,900 • Imperial and Laguna Dams Electrical Upgrade Project completed in 2018, total project cost-$20,940,977 • Imperial Dam Sluiceway Gate Replacement Project completed in 2019, total project cost-$3,132,200 • Imperial Dam Concrete Repairs 2019, total project costs- $823,954 www.iid.com 5 Projects List • Imperial Dam Desilting Basin Clarifier Valve Replacement Project will be completed in 2021, total project cost- $1,985,200 • Senator Wash Units 1, through 6 Rewind Stator and Pump Refurbishment 2019-2021, total project cost-$2,145,800 • Gila Headworks Trunnion Repair Project 2021-2022, estimated project costs-$4,156,635 • Gila Headworks Gate Replacement 2021-2022, estimated project costs-$2,900,000 www.iid.com 6 Projects List • Pilot Knob Wasteway/Spill Gate Replacement Project will be completed in 2021, project costs-$1,861,600 • Imperial Dam Desilting Basins Sludge Pipe Replacement Project 2022, estimated project costs-$15,000,000 • Gila Gravity Main Canal Unused Radial Gates Permanent Closure Project 2022, estimated project costs-$2,900,000 www.iid.com 7 Questions? www.iid.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • Central Arizona Water Conservation District
    Central Arizona Water Conservation District District collects and spends revenues in accordance with legal requirements and/or policies, has established various financial reserves, and operates the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District Special Audit December 2017 Report 17-112 A Report to the Arizona Legislature Debra K. Davenport Auditor General The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits and special reviews of school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee Senator Bob Worsley, Chair Representative Anthony Kern, Vice Chair Senator Sean Bowie Representative John Allen Senator Judy Burges Representative Rusty Bowers Senator Lupe Contreras Representative Rebecca Rios Senator John Kavanagh Representative Athena Salman Senator Steve Yarbrough (ex officio) Representative J.D. Mesnard (ex officio) Audit Staff Dale Chapman, Director Laura Long, Team Leader Jeremy Weber, Manager and Contact Person Katherine Boligitz Adam Tillard, Financial Manager Monette Kiepke Contact Information Arizona Office of the Auditor General 2910 N. 44th St. Ste. 410 Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 553-0333 www.azauditor.gov December 20, 2017 Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Doug Ducey, Governor Mr. Theodore Cooke, General Manager Central Arizona Water Conservation District Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Special Audit of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona
    Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1360-D DEC 10 1956 Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona By H. N. WOLCOTT, H. E. SKIBITZKE, and L. C. HALPENNY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1360-D An investigation of the availability of water in the area of the Artillery Mountains manganese deposits UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1956 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................................................................................................... 291 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 292 Purpose.................................................................................................................................... 292 Location................................................................................................................................... 292 Climatological data............................................................................................................... 292 History of development........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hiking in the Kawuneeche Valley Rocky Mountain
    National Park Rocky Mountain National Park Service Hiking in the Kawuneeche Valley Adams Falls (East Inlet Trailhead) This easy 1/3 mile hike leads to a small, pleasant waterfall. If you wish to go further, past the falls, you will come to a large, grassy, glaciated valley with a river running through it. Moose are sometimes sighted in this valley. Many types of wildflowers are found in this area. (79’gain) Cascade Falls (North Inlet Trailhead) Photogenic Cascade Falls is 3.4 miles into the North Inlet trail. This easy hike passes through an open meadow where marmots are often found, and by a river that winds through a lodgepole pine forest. Fishing is good for small brook trout and an occasional brown trout. Allow about 3-4 hours for hiking this trail. (300’gain) Lulu City (Colorado River Trailhead) A flowered field is all that remains of this once booming mining town. Pass by the remains of log cabins and look for tailings from Shipler Mine about 2 miles into the trail. The trail parallels the Colorado River and passes meadows on this easy to moderately difficult 7.4-mile round trip hike. (350’gain) Lulu City/Yellowstone Loop (Colorado River Trailhead) After passing Shipler’s cabins, you will come to a sign that will designate Lulu City to the left and Little Yellowstone to the right. Stay right at the Y. Follow the trail all the way to the Grand Ditch. Little Yellowstone is a miniature version of the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone, formed of stark gray volcanic rock.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of UTAH DEPARTMENT of NATURAL RESOURCES Technical
    STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Technical Publication No. 70 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER VIRGIN RIVER AND KANAB CREEK BASINS AREA, UTAH, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE NAVAJO SANDSTONE by R. M. Cordova Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with The Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights 1981 CONTENTS Page Conversion factors VI Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Purpose and scope of the study.................................... 2 Previous studies and acknowledgments 2 Data-site-numbering system........................................ 3 Location and general features of the study area 3 Physiography and drainage 3 Climate 6 CuI ture and economy 9 Geologic setting 9 General characteristics of the rocks 9 General geologic structure 11 Water resources 11 Precipitation 11 Surface water 13 Runoff 13 Chemical quality 13 Ground water 16 General conditions of occurrence 16 Unconsolidated-rock aquifers 17 Consolidated-rock aquifers 19 Hydrologic properties of aquifers 20 Recharge 27 Movement 28 Discharge 30 Seepage to streams 31 Evapotranspiration 31 Springs 33 Wells 35 Subsurface outflow 36 Storage 37 Chemical quality 41 General characteristics 41 Relation to use 47 Public supply 47 Irrigation supply 47 Temperature 49 Possible hydrologic effects of increased ground-water development 50 Interference with existing wells .......................•.......... 50 Shift of the ground-water divide 55 Reduction of streamflow 56 Effects on chemical quality of water 56 Summary and conclusions 57 References cited 59 Publications of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights 78 III ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates are in pocket] Plate 1. Map showing selected geohydrologic information in the upper Virgin River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Central Arizona Project
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short 1982 Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10) 6-9-1982 The Central Arizona Project Jon Kyl Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy- development-and-growth-interbasin-transfers Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Contracts Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Hydrology Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Kyl, Jon, "The Central Arizona Project" (1982). New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy-development-and-growth-interbasin- transfers/21 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Jon Kyl, The Central Arizona Project, in NEW SOURCES OF WATER FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: INTERBASIN TRANSFERS (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1982). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 ON THE COVER Rocky Mountain National Park Photograph by: Billy Schweiger A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 David M. Theobald1,2 Jill S. Baron2,3 Peter Newman1 Barry Noon4 John B. Norman III1,2 Ian Leinwand1 Sophia E. Linn1 Richard Sherer4 Katherine E. Williams2,5 Melannie Hartman2 1Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480 2Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499 3U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 80523 4Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1474 5Current address: Department of Biology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 This report was prepared under Task Order J2380060103 (Cooperative Agreement #H1200040001) July 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Compact, 1922
    Colorado River Compact, 1922 The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under the Act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August 19, 1921 (42 Statutes at Large, page 171), and the Acts of the Legislatures of the said States, have through their Governors appointed as their Commissioners: W.S. Norviel for the State of Arizona, W.F. McClure for the State of California, Delph E. Carpenter for the State of Colorado, J.G. Scrugham for the State of Nevada, Stephen B. Davis, Jr., for the State of New Mexico, R.E. Caldwell for the State of Utah, Frank C. Emerson for the State of Wyoming, who, after negotiations participated in by Herbert Hoover appointed by The President as the representative of the United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles: ARTICLE I The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water, to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made.
    [Show full text]