OK, so no evidence but a massive axe to grind. That’s fine. To be truthful though, I’m unsure where your beef is as it seems to generically be E vs. W citing political boundaries. However, there are boundaries and there are higher claims outside these boundaries.

Quote Originally Posted by foxtrot View Post
This isn't a case of water welfare. Water rights have been understood going back practically millennia with upstream and original having the biggest claim. Nobody on the other side of a mountain could have alleged water rights.

But, majority rules. This isn't water welfare, it's simple majority theft from minority; as the long standing "rules" precluded this kind of "welfare" in the first place.

The only present justification is our current political boundaries envelop both sides, so the theft of a resource from a minority population (who arguably has much greater need) for free is justified for the majority interest, ignoring all traditions and rules.
Trot, you’re a guy who loves to come on here with all sorts of legal ruminations. Here are your tradition and rules:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
(And if you prefer other than Wikipedia - details are readily available elsewhere).

So...
1) This treaty was signed as a concern much larger than the state of Colorado.
2) I can’t speak to “rules” going back “millennia” but this treaty certainly predates you and I.
3) It would seem that “upstream” doesn’t have the larger claim. Colorado has 1/2 of 1/2, but California has a larger claim. Seems you’d rather they get it than the Eastern slope (which by your own post isn’t even a calculable fraction of what CA is getting), and that’s fine too. There is something to be said about keeping water in the basin of origin and I do agree with you on that.
4) Theft by definition is illegal, but this is the law of the land. On the other hand, we have a conventional word where by law, we legally subsidize those with less in the interest of whatever. You can say this situation is not that word, but it sure fits the definition of welfare. To argue otherwise is somewhat disingenuous. You’re one of the first mods on here to clamp down on discussion advocating the illegal (which you aren’t doing here) - but this current movement of water is the law.

I get that you don’t like it. I don’t particularly like it either, but am of the opinion your anger is somewhat misplaced.