WSP11373 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OO:t85') "California, on the other hand, claims that existing main- stream projects exhaust the safe annual yield (i,c., the depend- able supply) of water in the Colorado River and that, accord- ingly, there is no supply available for new projects in Arizona. "California argues that, under the Project Ad, Arizona is apportioned 2.8 of 7.5 million acre-feet plus half of surplus, not from the mainstream of the Colorado River alone, but from all waters in the Lower Basin, Under such a System apportion- ment, Arizona's share of the total Lower Basin apportionment would be in large part exhausted by her uses on the Gila River System, and Califol'llia would be free to use most of the water available in the mainstream." From these conflicting views. the Master continued, arose what was perhaps the most crucial issue in the case. It was this: Is the application of the Project Act limited to the mainstream of the Colorado River or does it apply to the entire river system in the Lower Basin, that is, to both mainstream and tributaries? But there were other important que"tions at issue between Arizona and California, said the Master. One was "the inter- pretation, operative effect and validity of several sedion~ of th<: Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the water deliven' contract between the United States and Arizona." Another issue was "the effectiveness of Arizona's purported ratification of the Compact and the applicability of principles such as priority of appropriation and equitable ap- portionment," Nevada, said Judge Rifkind, tfJok a third approach: "She does not regard the Project Act or the water delivery tontraeh as controlling rights to water, Rather, she views the action as a traditional suit for equitable apportionment. in which she claims the right to approximately 500,000 acre-feet of water. based on needs projected to the year 2,000." The Master went on: "A second major controversy in\'olves the rights to tributary water among the states in which diversion... from the tributarie... occur. The important tributaries involved in this contro\'ersy are: "(1) The Gila River System, over which New Mexico and Arizona are in conflict; "(2) The Little Colorado River System, contested by the same tWfJ stat.es: and "(3) The Virgin River System, the waters of which are claimed by Utah, Ari%OlW and Nevad~L "As to all three stream systems, the upstream states pray for 'confirmation' of existing use... and an apportionment of water to be reserved for future uses." Another major controversy. said the Master. was between mainstream and tributary stat.es over water in the tributarie'3. This stemmed from the fact that uses on the It'ihutaries reduce the mainstream wpply,