Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c.) <br />c:) <br />t,,, <br />(..) <br />w::.. <br />a> <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />On this basis Arizona demanded that the flows of tributaries in Arizona, <br /> <br />notably the Gila River, not be counted in making up the Lower Basin and <br /> <br />Arizona allotments. <br /> <br />The conflict remained unresolved, and in 1952 the State of Ari- <br /> <br />zona brought suit against the State of California and seven public agen- <br /> <br />cies (U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, 1963). The public agencies involved <br /> <br />were the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Valley Irrigation <br /> <br />District, Coachella Valley County Water District, M.W.D. of Southern <br /> <br />Calif., City of L.A., City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. At <br /> <br />issue were the clarification of the role of tributary flows and the <br /> <br />limitation of consumptive use by the State of California so as not to <br /> <br />restrict Arizona's use of 2.8 MAF/yr of the flow passing Lees Ferry. <br /> <br />In 1963 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona. Signifi- <br /> <br />cant elements of the decision were (1) that the division of the Lower <br /> <br />Basin allotment recommended by the BCPA was in fact a legally binding <br /> <br />apportionment scheme; and (2) that Arizona tributaries were exempt <br /> <br />from the allotments specified by the 1922 Compact and the BCPA. <br /> <br />Thus, the total demand on the river, as measured at the division <br /> <br />between the Upper and Lower Basins at Lees Ferry, Arizona, would be <br /> <br />17.5 MAF/yr (21 km3/yr): 7.5 MAF for each basin, 1.5 MAP for Mexico, <br /> <br />plus 1.0 MAF for losses enroute to the Mexican border (U.S. Supreme <br /> <br />Court Reporter, 1963). <br /> <br />A summary of current state water rights appears in Table 1.1. <br /> <br />