Case of the Collapsed Compact

Who killed the CAP Compact? Like in the parlor game, suspects are many but clues are scarce. Was it Nevada Governor Bob Miller with a phone call to the White House? Was it tribal attorneys pressing water rights claims on Interior Secretary Babbitt? Could California's Congressional delegation, the traditional villain in Arizona water politics, have been involved? Or did Arizona bollix the deal itself by not providing tribes access to excess CAP water or the right to pursue out-of-state leasing, as hinted by Secretary Babbitt?

Motives and theories are as plentiful as the parties jockeying for Lower Colorado River water and power. And while the last-minute collapse of the agreement in early June has all parties pointing fingers, the Central Arizona Project Board has filed suit in an effort to resolve the repayment issues.

The major issue addressed in the compact was how much of the CAP's $4+ billion price tag Arizonans would repay. The CAP's position was it owed $1.82 billion, while the federal estimate was nearly $2.3 billion. The parties finally agreed to a figure of $1.92 billion, but the deal fell victim to collateral issues including temporary use of Arizona's currently underutilized Colorado River allocation by California, the search for permanent supplemental water for Nevada, and unsettled tribal water issues.

The following chronology summarizes the events that led to the current impasse and pending litigation:

Aug 93 Negotiations begin on settling Arizona's CAP repayment obligation.

Nov 94 Tohono O'odham Nation and Gila River Indian Community claim that CAP discounts on surplus CAP water offered to non-Indian farmers only are discriminatory. Tribes request representation on CAP board.

June 95 Motivated by mutual distaste of proposed federal water marketing rules, Arizona, California and Nevada begin meeting to discuss water banking concepts for leasing unused Colorado River water. Arizona currently is not using some 800,000 af per year of its allocation, while California and Nevada use their entire allotments.

Feb 14 18 months of negotiations lead to agreement on how the Master Repayment Contract between Interior and the CAP will be interpreted. Arizona's repayment obligation is set at $1.92 billion. Tribes with CAP allocations must waive their right to sue over discrimination in exchange for a $45 million trust fund to build water distribution systems. (See Feb. AWR, p. 1 for agreement details.)

Mar 1 CAP and Interior jointly brief Congress on agreement.

Mar 2 Secretary Babbitt endorses agreement in interview.

Spring Arizona drops out of tri-state discussions regarding Colorado River allocations, saying it won't return without certain guarantees.

May Compact signing ceremony scheduled for June 9 in Phoenix.

June 2 ADWR Director Rita Pearson writes Secretary Babbitt outlining conditions for Arizona's return to the table to discuss marketing of Colorado River allocations. Letter demands assurances that the law of the river will not be modified.

June 8 Nevada Governor Bob Miller calls President Clinton to discuss Las Vegas's need for water.

June 8 Babbitt abruptly returns to D.C. without signing the compact.

June 16 ADWR Director Pearson blames Nevada Governor Bob Miller for pressuring President Clinton to kill the repayment deal so as to improve Nevada's position in ongoing negotiations over Colorado River allocations.

June 21 CAP Board of Directors' Executive Committee votes unanimously to file suit against the federal government over unsettled issues involving CAP repayment. CAP officials claim the suit will focus discussions on the single issue of repayment responsibilities.

June 26 Western Governors' Association passes a resolution stating that "any administrative decisions intended to improve the operations of the Colorado River must comply with the law of the river and should not be undertaken without the unanimous consent of all affected parties."

July 6 Babbitt agrees to meet on July 11 with Arizona's congressional delegation to discuss CAP.

July 7 Arizona boycotts meeting of Babbitt and officials from California, Nevada and five tribes on Colorado River allocations. Mediator describes Arizona as "potentially the Saudi Arabia of the Southwest when it comes to water." Attendees adopt ground rules demanded by Arizona, including a declaration that no state's permanent Colorado River water allocations will be affected by any agreements.

July 10 CAP's lawsuit asking for a judicial declaration of Arizona's repayment obligation filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Tucson currently handling Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District bankruptcy.

July 14 Babbitt calls on Arizona officials to return to the bargaining table to discuss allocation of Colorado River water, warning that a failure to address California and Nevada concerns may hurt Arizona's position with Congress regarding CAP repayment issues.

Late Governors of California and

July Nevada write Babbitt urging renewed negotiations between Interior and Arizona over repayment issues, with no ties to water allocation discussions.

July 26 Governor Symington and other state leaders meet with Babbitt, but no breakthrough in separating CAP repayment issues from Colorado River allocation issues is achieved. Babbitt insists allocation and tribal issues are linked in Congress, which must approve any compact.

Sept CAP suit is expected to come to trial.#2 artwork here

Feature 1 - Feature 2 - Water Vapors - News Briefs - Announcements - Transitions
Legislation & Law - Poem - Special Projects - Publications - Calendar

Water Center Home -- AWR Home -- Search