Reposted from Defenders Magazine.
Rodger Schlickeisen
The Colorado River was once an unbroken ribbon of life from the northern Rockies of central Wyoming through the vast arid Southwest into Mexico and eventually the Gulf of California. But today the Colorado River is not healthy. In fact, it no longer exists in a form that could reasonably be called a river in its southernmost reaches.
By the early 1960s, decades of massive U.S. dam projects and water diversions had continuously reduced the southern flow until not a drop of water reached the Gulf of California . The once incredibly lush delta ecosystem dried up, and wildlife was extirpated. Local fishermen were put out of business. Indigenous people lost a way of life they had led for millennia.
Ask yourself: If the borders of the United States had encompassed the entire length of the Colorado River all the way to the Gulf of California, would the federal and state governments have permitted the delta and upper reaches of the gulf to be ecologically devastated? Such an outcome would have been inconceivable.
In recent years, because of an aberration in the management of the Colorado River in the United States, there has been a small, accidental flow of “surplus” water that has begun to restore the delta’s wildlife and its ecosystem, the Gulf fishery, and even the indigenous people’s way of life. That restoration makes a compelling case for revising the bi-national agreement allocating the river’s waters to reduce the massive ecological, economic and cultural harm that has been caused in Mexico .
Even now this remarkable restoration is seriously at risk, for north of the Mexico border the U.S. government, Colorado River Basin States, and other governmental entities are hard at work trying to eliminate the accidental flow and redirect it entirely to U.S. uses.
Western states have been fighting over the river for decades and have recently been joined by scientists, environmentalists and other public interest advocates. Native peoples too are now engaged, in the form of the Cocopah Indian Nation of southern Arizona, which is struggling with the impacts of the U.S. government’s “modern” Colorado River management, and their fellow tribal members (the Cucup·) in Mexico. The government of Mexico of course is also a player, albeit one that is obviously torn between its desires to fight for what is right for its own lands and people and its needs to placate a powerful and demanding northern neighbor.
To my mind the over-riding issue is one of cross-border equity in claims on and use of the river. In fact, viewed objectively by modern international standards, one can argue that the U.S. basically stole the Colorado River from Mexico—and continues to steal it every day it does not allow sufficient water to provide for the reasonable ecological, economic and cultural health of the delta and gulf.
Major Colorado River water users in the United States point to the U.S.-Mexico treaty of 1944, which established the current, grossly disproportionate allocations of river water between the two nations. But the simple existence of a treaty does not assure its fairness, especially when it was negotiated between parties of unequal power.
International environmental law has not yet evolved sufficiently to resolve conflicts over the Colorado River ‘s water. But basic principles have been clearly enunciated and adopted by the community of nations. For example, international courts and national governments agree that every country has not only the sovereign right to manage its own affairs but also the solemn responsibility to ensure that activities within its borders do not cause environmental harm elsewhere. The United States has been a champion of this principle against transboundary harm since early in the twentieth century—ironically, even through the period in which it was aggressively capturing the Colorado River .
I recognize that giving up part of its claim on a valuable natural resource, no matter how unreasonably and unfairly acquired, is not easy. If it were, Defenders of Wildlife and other U.S. and Mexican public interest organizations would not be in court right now trying to compel the United States and five southwest state governments to do just that. But such a court result shouldn’t be necessary. The U.S. government should take the initiative, as it has in similar situations, to acknowledge the unfairness of the 1944 treaty and negotiate the kind of equitable solution expected of a great nation.
Rodger Schlickeisen is the president of Defenders of Wildlife. To send him an e-mail, write Rodger@Defenders.org.