WSP11698

• File Number: 8210.470
• Description: Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 8/6/1964
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Lower Colorado River Basin Project - Report with Individual and Minority Views - To Accompany S 1658 - Calendar Number 1267
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

01)1795

'.'

\':.

THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT

11

:..";"

ect Act, subsection (d) provides that revenues are not available for
appropriation for construction of works within any unit of the project.
Subparagraph (3) of subsection (e) is new and is intended to meet
a problem peculiar to the Lower Oolorado River Basin.
The Oolorado River compact was negotiated and the Boulder Oan-
yon Act was passed on the basis of estimates of Oolorado River flows
which later experience shows were unduly optimistic. As late as 1929,
it was authorItatively estimated that the virgin flow of the Oolorado
River at Boulder Canyon was in excess of 18 million acre-feet per
year. (Debler, "Hydrology of Boulder Oanyon Reservoir," cited in
H. Doc, 717, 80th Cong., p. 103.) The potential Mexican burden at
that time was assumed to be between 750,000 and 800,000 acre-feet per
annum. In 1945, former President Hoover (the Federal representa-
tive in the negotiation of the Colorado River compact) affirmed that
the negotiators of the compact had not anticipated a Mexican treaty
requirements greatly in excess of the Mexican use in 1922, some 500,000
to 600,000 acre.feet per year (Id., p. 161).
Had the estimates of virgin flow been borne out, no question as to
satisfying all present contracts would arise. However, the virgin in-
flow to Lake Mead for the 34 years, 1930-63, has averaged but 14
million acre-feet annually, over 4 million acre-feet less than antici-
pated, while Mexico's rights have been fixed by treaty at 1,500,000
acre-feet per annum. Thus, the inability of the Oolorado River to
meet the needs of Arizona, Oalifornia, and Nevada is due in part to
the unforeseen course of nature and in part to the equally unpredicta-
ble course of diplomacy.
To relieve the burden on all three States, subparagraph (3) of sub-
section (e) provides that the balance in the development fund shall
be used, to the extent that revenues are available, to provide "makeup"
water as required to support the consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-
feet in Arizona, California, and Nevada at costs that would have pre-
vailed had Oolorado River water been available. The figures 2,800,000
acre-feet in Arizona, 4,400,000 acre-feet in California, and 300,000
acre-feet in Nevada reflect the apportionment of main-stream water
sufficient to provide the consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet which
the Supreme Oourt held was made pursuant to the Boulder Oanyon
Project Act by the Secretary of the Interior's contracts and the Oali-
fornia limitation act. (Arizona v. California (373 U.S. 546, 592,
1963)). Under this decision, unless the water supply of the lower
basin is augmented to maintain the 7,500,000 acre-feet, none of the
States can expect to receive their full apportionment in years of short-
age. The Secretary of the Interior in testifying before the subcom-
mittee on April 16, 1964, indicated that he could see no basis for
following the rule of prior appropriation in allocating shortages
among the States. Moreover, California will bear alone the loss of the
~~lus assumed to exist at the time it entered its contracts, i.e., the
. erence between 5,362,000 and 4,400,000 acre-feet.
The price protection in subparagraph (3) of subsection (e) is not
a guarantee III the sense that the United States will underwrite all
costs of making the equivalent of 7,500,000 acre-feet available. How-
ever, the bill does recognize that the lower basin States have need for
some relief. Therefore, subparagraph (3) of .subsection (e) provides
a dedication of a portion of the revenues in the development fund if
"makeup" water is needed. However, this does not provide nor imply

,..

" ~ .'

,',

-';'.

" ....
. .'