|
<br />2 Chapter t -IntroductIon
<br />
<br />LEGAL ASPECTS
<br />
<br />t-.>
<br />W
<br />-:E
<br />to
<br />
<br />Water Quantity
<br />
<br />Apportionment of Colorado River water has been
<br />accomplished by the Colorado River Compact of
<br />1922, the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928,
<br />the Mexican Treaty of 1944, the Upper Colorado
<br />River Basin Compact of 1948, and the U,S,
<br />Supreme Court (State of Arizona v, California et
<br />ai"~ 1964),
<br />
<br />The Colorado River Compact divided the
<br />Colorado River between the Upper and Lower
<br />Basins at Lee Ferry (just below the confluence of
<br />the Paria River), apportioned to each 7,5 million
<br />acre-feet (mat) annually, In addition to this
<br />apportionment, the Lower Basin was given the
<br />right to increase its beneficial consumptive use
<br />by 1 mafper year, The compact also contains
<br />provisions governing exportation and obligations
<br />to Indian Tribes, The Mexican Treaty of 1944
<br />obligates the United States to deliver to Mexico
<br />1.5 maf of Colorado River water annually,
<br />
<br />The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of
<br />1948 divided and apportioned the water
<br />apportioned to the Upper Basin by the Colorado
<br />River Compact, allocating to Arizona
<br />50,000 acre-feet annually, with the remaining
<br />water allocated to Upper Basin States as follows:
<br />Colorado, 51.75 percent; New Mexico,
<br />11,25 percent; Utah, 23 percent; and Wyoming,
<br />14 percent, The compact pennitted the
<br />authorization of Federal projects above
<br />Lee Ferry,
<br />
<br />States of the Lower Basin, however, did not
<br />agree to a compact for the apportionment of
<br />waters in the Lower Colorado River Basin;
<br />accordingly, a Supreme Court decree <Arizona v,
<br />California et at,) in 1964 allocated use of the
<br />mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee
<br />Ferry among California, Nevada, and Arizona
<br />and of the Gila River between Arizona and
<br />New Mexico, From the mainstream of the
<br />Lower Colorado River, Nevada was apportioned
<br />300,000 acre-feet annually, Arizona was
<br />apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet annually, and
<br />California was apportioned 4,400,000 acre-feet
<br />annually, The decree also permitted Federal
<br />water projects and the development of Indian
<br />tribal lands to proceed,
<br />
<br />Nothing in this report is intended to interpret
<br />the provisions of the Colorado River Compact
<br />(45 Stat, 1057), the Upper Colorado River Basin
<br />Compact (63 Stat, 31), the Water Treaty of 1944
<br />with the United Mexican States (Treaty Series
<br />994; 59 Stat, 1219), the decree entered by the
<br />Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona
<br />v, California et a/, (376 U,S, 340), the Boulder
<br />Canyon Project Act (45 Stat, 1057), the Boulder
<br />Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat, 774;
<br />43 U,S,C, 618a), the Colorado River Storage
<br />Project Act (70 Stat, 105; 43 U,S,C, 620), or the
<br />Colorado River Basin Project Act (82 Stat, 885;
<br />43 U.s,C, 1501),
<br />
<br />
<br />Water Quality
<br />
<br />Although a number of water quality related
<br />legislative actions have been taken on the State
<br />and Federal levels, four Federal acts are of
<br />special significance to the Colorado River
<br />Basin-the Water Quality Act of 1965 and
<br />related amendments, the Federal Water
<br />Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
<br />(Public Law 92-500), the Colorado River Basin
<br />Salinity Control Act of 1974 as amended, and
<br />the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended, Also
<br />central to water quality issues are agreements
<br />with Mexico on Colorado River system waters
<br />entering that country,
<br />
<br />
<br />The Water Quality Act of 1965 (Public
<br />Law 89-234) amended the Federal Water
<br />Pollution Control Act and established a Federal
<br />Water Pollution Control Administration (now
<br />Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)),
<br />Among other provisions, it required States to
<br />adopt water quality criteria for interstate waters
<br />inside their boundaries, The seven Basin States
<br />initially developed water quality standards that
<br />did not include numeric salinity criteria for the
<br />Colorado River, primarily because of technical
<br />constraints, In 1972, the States agreed to a
<br />policy that called for the maintenance of salinity
<br />concentrations in the Lower Colorado River
<br />system at or below existing levels, while the
<br />Upper Basin States continued to develop their
<br />compact-apportioned waters, The States
<br />suggested that Reclamation should have
<br />primary responsibility for investigating,
<br />planning, and implementing the proposed
<br />Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program,
<br />
|