Editorial: Share in cost of river study

Thursday, Sept. 15, 2005 | 9:09 a.m.

For more than 80 years Nevada's annual share of the Colorado River has been based on an estimate of the river's volume. This estimate, 16.5 million acre-feet a year, is also the basis for how much water is received by the six other Western states that depend on the river. A sustained dry spell since the late 1990s, however, combined with recent tree-ring studies in forests along the river, have cast doubt on that estimate. Now, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science wants to study the river and obtain an updated estimate.

The budget for the study is $450,000. On Tuesday Nevada's Colorado River Commission unanimously tabled a request from the research council to contribute $30,000. The commission's seven members negotiate when necessary with the six other states and with the federal government, which enforces each state's allocation. Commission Chairman Richard Bunker told the Sun that he has concerns about the quality of the study because he has issues with some of the 12 scientists and engineers chosen to conduct it. He did not elaborate beyond that.

From what is readily apparent, however, it seems to us that the commission missed an opportunity to participate in a critical study that will be done with or without local funding. The 12 study members, including Nevada's Kelly Redmond, a climatologist, have appropriate backgrounds and their conclusions will undergo peer review.

One reason for fearing the study is that the volume of Colorado River water may turn out to be substantially less than 16.5 million acre-feet. This could lead to a lowering of all the states' allocations. Nevada, whose annual share of 300,000 acre-feet is by far the lowest, could be hurt the most as it has the highest growth rate. The commission should help fund the study, though, because basing allocations on inaccurate volume estimates could create a severe water crisis in the future. And, politics being politics, if the commission does not share in the cost, it could have a weaker voice in ensuring fairness if allocations must be recalculated.