|
<br />,
<br />
<br />Pacific lAw lou",al I 1'0/. /9
<br />
<br />of ~lectricaJ power." Moreonr, 85 nOled in the discussion on the
<br />Colorado River Compact, Article III (e) specifically prevents the
<br />Upper Basin from wilhholding water that can not reasonably be
<br />applied 10 domestic and agricullural uses. even if Ihe quantity is
<br />within the Upper Basin aprorlionment.
<br />Second1y, the hand\ins or the Galloway water in relation 10 Co.-
<br />lorado', Vamp. River delivery oblisation to Utah would have 10 be
<br />worked ou(."O As nott'd earlier. an imrlicit right exists for olher
<br />Upper Basin Slates to use unused Upper Basin water, subject to (he
<br />rC'Quiremenls of the Colorado River Compact. If the Galloway project
<br />uam.ferred .....ater in storage in Co1olado {or use ;n Utah. the Upper
<br />Basin Compact sptcifically slates that Ihe consumptive use will be
<br />charged 10 Utah, Q/hich would defeat the purpose of the transfer.'1
<br />Most importantly, however, is the effect of lhe proposal on the
<br />Upper Basin's obli8ation to deliver n million acre-feci of water every
<br />continuing ten year period at Lee Ferry Cor the benefit or the loQ/er
<br />Bil5in.ft The Galloway proposal does not creale any ncw wafcr for
<br />the Colorado River System, For the proposal to work and assure
<br />ultimate delivery of the waler to San Diego, Ihrer cvents need Co
<br />occur: (I) The Upper Basin would agrer 10 an increase in the Lee
<br />Ferry delivery obligation by the amount or water to be delivered Co
<br />San Diego, and Colorado would have to agree Ihat the additional
<br />delivery at lee Ferry would be charged to its Upper Basin appor-
<br />tionment. One need only state that proposition to !oce i1s poor chances
<br />of success. (2) The apportionmenl betwC(:1l the states in the Lower
<br />Basin would hnc 10 be changed to accommodalc the new quantily
<br />for San Diego. This event is unlikely 10 occur. (3) An existing
<br />California contractor would have to subordinate its priorily to the
<br />,:)3.0 Diego County Water Auth.ority,
<br />In sum, the changes that would be required to assure delivery or
<br />.he Galloway water to Lee ferry, involving Upper Basin and Colo-
<br />rado River Compacts amendments by seven stales and the Congress,
<br />and chal1gcs in lhe contracls between California users and the Sec-
<br />retary. seem to be beyond prescnt day political reality, A prospect
<br />with perhaps a better, chance oC success would be the paymen.t by
<br />
<br />119. UpneJ ColorJdo Ri~a B;uin Compact, 6J Sill. 'I. 32 (19'9) ("The term 'dc:omeslie
<br />..,e'lhIU Incluck lhe uleof...rn rorhousehold,llock, municipal, minin" millin" induIUill
<br />In4 OIht'l 'ille purrollon, bUI 1\'1111 <<elude Ihe fe'nrrllion or rlrtlrkll powrr.").
<br />90. sr-nlprgnotr2f1lndlceompt.nyin,lul.
<br />91. l!Pr:oer Colorldo Ri~er Buin Complct, 63 51". ]1. J4 (19").
<br />91. doll'lPM1. suprtI nole J, II An. III (d). S<< J~ nole 17 Ind MrOIIIPlnyln,laI.
<br />
<br />1412
<br />
<br />,
<br />r';'
<br />
<br />~:r_'
<br />\ ,\,
<br />"
<br />"
<br />. ~'
<br />::-.....-..
<br />
<br />~ I, . . ,. ,
<br />. ....\:.r.:.;.
<br />. J',,"_:, t.~, ',:': ':., .'. .~."'~:'f
<br />. .. ~. I . .
<br />".::,:;:i"~\:""/.'/,'"
<br />
<br />;.-,/. '...,..."
<br />". c'.. . ,.,~~ " .
<br />
<br />. ~." .
<br />
<br />...
<br />
<br />::.1'
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />~' .
<br />
<br />f' .
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />1988 I California Colorado Ri~r Issues
<br />
<br />.. '
<br />. '.~, . ;. .~,~. '.1
<br />
<br />~A ~ ;"". .' , ,. .
<br />, r. '. . .. :~:
<br />
<br />. '.j . I " I. ".~:;.,.
<br />
<br />Lower Basin interests to Upper Basin interests 10 delay or stop
<br />development, with its accompanying consumptive use of water in the
<br />Upper Basin. The objeclive would be to foreclose Lower Basin
<br />shortages or even create surpluses.'.
<br />
<br />I.,.~;:~.;<,;
<br />....,:i:'.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />:~1,~'J~~', ~~\~~.
<br />
<br />~{~j~}
<br />
<br />.~:,:It./....r.;h.
<br />:,::,<:' {'. ~ '..~<;
<br />. -..,'.'
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />,...,.4...J..,,,.,
<br />~:JP:f;.~:.~~~.1~,?
<br />:~":":W"-\~\'t.'j:":'
<br />~-~~~\~'~";":"'~~(
<br />,..i5:.1....~, \.~j\~ \'
<br />
<br />
<br />tirl
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />;.iJi';'('i~;':\'ii
<br />
<br />l'-:'~"'''.::''''';~:::~(':
<br />';I,':1:'1.',:""~t, :~.::,'
<br />
<br />". , :.> . . ' . '.,'., ,', :.','l :'.:./.i?.,:'I",~;.::,',~~~,~,.,~:J,.~,:,"."."
<br />'.. ':"'r;... ,,'I',. .,'...~.,<j;-..t..,.." .."/, ".,..J,..,.:,:~.,,~:~., ~".;::~' ;:~'i',:~:-",'~'..;'.~ ;;;~,~,;,~.~, f' >T it'
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />';"::1!~~~'fill~~f[:';)i";,::l':',i~~~lr~i:;::;,~;,r.~lYf:~:,~]~i~il~
<br />
<br />B. Lowtr Basin ProbftlJU
<br />
<br />As just noted, if the quantity of water d~liyered by the Upper
<br />Bil5in at Lee Ferry is nol increased, an attempted reapportionment
<br />of lOQ/er Basin apportionments would necessarily result from the
<br />Galloway proposal if it were 10 succeed. The moment the Galloway
<br />water reaches Lee Ferry. however, under the decree in Arizona ".
<br />California. il becomes "wafer controlled by the United States,....
<br />and is subject to the allocation scheme and contract regulations of
<br />lhe decree and the Boulder Canyon Projtct Act. San Diego cannot
<br />divert Colorado River water at Lake HavIsu wilhout a contract from
<br />the Secretary, Since California has already allocated, indeed over-
<br />allocated, its dependable apponionment of Colorado River water.
<br />and af the same time has agreed in ilJ Limitation Ad, 10 use no
<br />more than 4.4 million acre-feet per year plus one half of any surplus,"
<br />it seems unlikely that 1he Secretary would grant such 8 contract,'" If
<br />he did. presumably San Diego would receive a lower priority, which
<br />in fact will mean no water al all except in surplus years. The e:osting
<br />contractors have rights to more than California's share of 4.400.000
<br />acre~feet per ycar. If San Diego were given a higher priority than
<br />e,usting c.ontra<;tors, the res.utt would be lengthy litigation.
<br />Finally, Galloway water could be allowed to be added to Cali Cor.
<br />nia's apportionment and (he water would be taken Crom the Central
<br />Arizona Project due to that project's. lower priority pursuant 10 the
<br />
<br />93_ .w Gnches, nl~ nolr 16 II ,. :.
<br />94. Arizonl". ClrirorTUa, 376 u.s. 340 (l96') (ddlolllon 01 _ter CIOIIuollrd '" lhe
<br />Un\ltd ShIn).
<br />9'. Stf'SlIf"lInolr4ol.ndla:OIIIpIny,nllt"ll1.
<br />96. The San Dir,o Counly Wiler Authoril' obI linn! an opinion which eondudtd ,hi'
<br />AI '0 .ny Impc:rilllr",llIon Oillll<:\ w.ler IQld 10 Ihr AulhOrily, 1l'1c Sraetll'J could nOl deny
<br />I conn'CI 10 Ihe Aulhorily, liner no fellerll inlntl! is implicaltl!. The 1mpn-ial rn'lIt'1 is
<br />diac:uurd in P'I! IV or lhr Inl. Thr IUlhor hrrr lugnu. hOWC'\'Cr, Ihlllt to bolh I a.nowa,
<br />propoJaI for inlerbuin crUlIfn_ or an inlrlS'lll lrlntCer In Cahromil. I frdt'l"a1 inlcral il
<br />indccd imt'licatt'd wM;rr C'li'tinl conttlC(l" act, of ConlP"aI Ind Supremr Coun ckd_ M\l'C
<br />'rporlionrd, indeed, C:O~CT-Ippc:onioned California" .hart Dr Colorado Ri"a Wiler. 5<< Letter
<br />Opinion, M'y " 19" (TratU(CT or Color.do Rl"cr Wilier Wilhin Caliromill) (00 nle at 1M
<br />h<clfir I..III Joum.f).
<br />
<br />1413
<br />
|