WSP11373 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00185~1 As for the Boulder Canyon Project Act: This, ruled the Master, is to be "the source of authority for the allocation and delivery of water to Arizona, California and Nev~Hla from Lake Mead and from the Colorado River below Lake Mead." Several sections of this statute made it obvious that Congress so intended, and the Master cited those sections, concluding with the follow- ing words: "These provisions, together with the general oper- ational scheme established in the Act and the purposes of the A ct explicated in the legislative history, make it clear that the Project Act was designed by Congress to establish the authority for an allocation of all of the available water in Lake Mead and in the mainstream of lhe Colorado River downstream from Lake Mead among Arizona, California and Nevada, the only states with access to this water. As to this water, principles such as equitable apportionment or priority of appropriation which might otherwise have controlled the interstate division of the River in its natural flow condition were abrogated by the Project Act." 'With the foregoing discussion as a background, then, the Master announced that his recommendatil'ns to the Supreme Court would be as follows: 1. Allocation from the mainstre....m. The Master held that the first 9 million acre-feet per year of water stored in Lake Mead should be allocated on this basis: After subtracting 11,~ million acre-feet to fulfill the U.S. treaty obligation to Mexico, the remaining 71,~ million acre-feet be shared among the three mainstream states-California, Ari- zona and Nevada-in these proportions: California-'],400,OOO acre.feet. Arizona-2,800,OOO acre-feet. Nevada-800,000 acre-feet. , (This was the crux of the draft report. In plain terms, Ari- zona won what it asked for-2,800.000 acre-feet. California had as]{ed for 5,362,000 aere-feet and was held to the 4.400,000 acre- feet specified in the California Limitatipn Act.) In case of a surplus, ;,".. more than 9 million acre-feet in the mainstream, Arizona and California wmlld share equally. Nevada would have the right to eontrac:t for ,1 per cent of the surpllls, this portion to conw from Arizom,'s 50 per eent. If, in any year, there is less than 71/! million acre-feet in the mainstream, the available SllPP]Y is to bE' shared on the same jJro-rata basis (44/75-28/75-3/75) as if the full 7~ million were available, Arizona, in other words, would get 28/75 or 37.5 pel' cent of whatever water is to be had. Evaporation losses are to be regarded as diminlltioll of antilable sUPJlly, They are to be shared Jl"O 1'"ta in the same way the \V1Iter itself is shared, since evaporation simply means water whkh is gone and thus is not on hand to be distributed. (Here