|
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />.
<br />.
<br />
<br />Pacl/ic lAw Journal I Vol. 19
<br />
<br />1988 / Co/ifornlo Colorodo River /:rsuu
<br />
<br />. t 116'( seems likely the methodology or sharing the burden
<br />proJet 5, h' 8..',n, will come into play and mon likely lead to
<br />between t e
<br />~1~~~nnn;gOliators of the Colorado River Compact proceeded o~. the
<br />o was ample Water for the intcrbasm appo Ion.
<br />assumption that there " ed and unappropriated waters lurficient
<br />IS made plus unappor Ion .
<br />men tat)' obligation. I" That not being the case, the quc5Uo~S
<br />'O'lml ~~~ea~~e r:tatcs of both Basins. and conceivably could result In
<br />WI . . h S meCourt1f,l
<br />another O~~ginr~br:~c~:~~neg ~:a~il~ o~~~: water deiivercd to Mcxi~o.
<br />A seea : h" . a federal problem, it may ultimately require
<br />~ov~~ ~:I~~~ b: t~Se ~niled Stales which could affect existing Colorado
<br />
<br />Ri~~e ail~;::t~~n:aler quality is basically a problem of salinity: The
<br />Mexican Water Treaty was silent on the question of the quality of
<br />brgaled to be delivered at the international boundary, II
<br />!he wa\~\~o~n fact however. that after running the full length ~f
<br />ISh a ~e ... the Unit~d States and particularly from returns to t e
<br />t e fiver III , 8. d the Palo
<br />river from upstream diversions in che Upper asm, .an. .
<br />Verde drain in California and. the ,!,ehlton:IM~~:;k :i~~I~~~s~~I~~~:~
<br />the water of the Colorado River IS eaVI y "
<br />its eHicient use.'" The MellicanGovernmenl compl~lne~ In the 19~d
<br />and in 1912 and 1973 agreements were reached obhgaun,g the U~ .
<br />States to deliver water at the international b~undary ,W1th ha sal~R1ty
<br />of no more than J IS parts per million"'llI Various actions ave ~en
<br />and can be taken to meet this requirement. such as the constructIon
<br />:~t~h~h:~::se~::~'~=t:,I~~~~ ~~:il~~:~gf:: '~~ni~;~i~::::n C:~;~
<br />
<br />California is limited to use of 4,4 million acre4feet per year, an
<br />taking acreage out of produaion.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />. and decrees of the Supreme Court. The answer to Ihe question
<br />presenled may well turn on whether and to what e~lent che Uniled
<br />Stales may represent and bind Indian tribes by iu actions and
<br />litigation. This seems to have been well sell led, ac least for Water
<br />rights purposes in the lO'Ner Basin of the Colorado River by Ar;:olltl
<br />Y. Calijornftl II. In the orllinal ease, the Unhed States fepreseDled
<br />the Indians in Ihe quantincalion of Iheir waler rights. In the amended
<br />decree in 1979. che live lower Basin Tribes were awarded present
<br />perlected ri~hu, presumably protected by and subject 10 the provi.
<br />sions of Ihe law of the River, and Ihe Tribes were denied leave to
<br />intervene 10 oppose Ihe amendmenl.11J In the second Ari~o"o case.
<br />the three affecled Indian Tribes intervened and raised the queslion
<br />of inadequate represenlalion of the Uniled States in the original case,
<br />The Court rejected Ihis anack. and made it amply clear that the
<br />United States had full authority to bind rhe Tribes in Iiligation and
<br />that its represenralion was exemplary.... In any evenc, if any Upper
<br />Basin Indian Tribes seek 10 sell water in Ihe lower Basin. this
<br />question. as many other will undoubledly be resolved by lililation.
<br />
<br />VI. UNITED STATES-Mu.lCO WATER TREATY SUPPLY OBUOATION'S
<br />
<br />We noted in the discussion on the law of the Ri....er Ihat the
<br />United States undertook an obligalion to deliver 1,'OO,CKXl acre-feet
<br />of Colorado River water to Mexico each year. Two problems develop
<br />our of this agreement. It is the author's inlenl here only 10 introduce
<br />Ihe problems, as it appears that despite Ihe many discussions between
<br />lhe Bureau of Reclamation and Che. Slales on rhe Treaty water
<br />quanrity and qualilY shortfalls. no ,reat analysis or resolution of the
<br />pOlential inlerstale squabbles had been undertaken. The first problem
<br />is determining who should bear the butden of supplying the warer.
<br />The Colorado River Compact provided that such a creaty obligalion
<br />~hould be first met out of surplus warers, and if there was no surplus,
<br />il should be borne equally by the Upper and lower Basins.." In the
<br />future, the prospects 8re that there will not be any surplus waters,
<br />Even though the Colorado River Basin Project Acl of 1968 made
<br />[he salisfaction of the obligalion a nalional one, berote the satisfac-
<br />fion of the Mexican alreemenl can be met ouc of water augmentation
<br />
<br />In. Arilonl v. Cllirornil, '39 u S, '19. .n, '21, '36-]1 (1979).
<br />1604, Arilon. v. C"hrorni.l II, .t6O U S. 60', 62rS.U' (191)1.
<br />165, Sn s,,~ nOltl 81.2 .nd ,ccomp.n,in. IU1.
<br />
<br />166. !rr,..pqnole".nd.ccompan,;nllnl. ,
<br />161. SP'tJII"" nOle 81 .nd .cwmp.ny.n. ICII. due 10 tcepIIle.nd C'I'.porllloll
<br />168, Dot-I Ih~ Upper Bui". bc-Ir .he losSl:.' of ~I' ~= much II lever" hundm! IhOUl.alld
<br />bch..cen l~ Fern Ind Ihe Mu.C'.n border. WhlC'h dm ~ Ihe Cahfcnnll Color.do River BoIrd
<br />'C1~.fco:1 ptT ~lrl The 1011 nlcul"llon1, .~ m~ ~ J bch'nd 0.,,;, Dun whiC'h wu daillled
<br />Ilarr Ire b.W'd on tv.por.lion rf'COrd1 or 1I e oJ.ve I ,
<br />in ~r1 as Itorale 10 mttl Ihe MClIican rle~lrztt:::;b.c".rcrund OIIlhi1 problem),
<br />169, 5for Nalhlnson, suP'/J nOle.6. c ;._. d . .rld Wiler Commiukm MinlllCl :z.cl uxI
<br />170. Sn Id, II 21S-21 (Inlem.llorW ...""n '1')'
<br />2'21. . 'II rodueebrine"'ler.hichwinbcconv~1O
<br />171, Opera.ion 0' .he dcullln, pl.nt., hP h dcuJled ..ill r~nlCl'!!Ie Colol"ldo Jljva'
<br />lhe Gulf of C.lirorm.. Allen ..In, C'l'm I CUI i. lhe brine
<br />lh.n JlrrviOlllly.ll..ilI be n<<calll')' 10 ....dop wiler 10 rc-p lee .
<br />
<br />,\
<br />
<br />1430
<br />
<br />1431
<br />
<br />!~ .
<br />:/
<br />
|