WSP11698 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT 13 ?, ' 001797 tral Arizona unit has already been delayed at least 17 years at incalcu- lable loss to Arizona. Since Arizona has, after 12 years of litigation, succeeded in getting a determination of her share of the waters of the main stream of the Colorado River she is anxious to harvest the fruits of her victory. She objects to waiting longer for her projects while projects to satisfy the region's deficiencies are being studied and Cali- fornia continues to use Arizona's water. As a step toward reconciliation of the two States, the California users offered to abandon their traditional opposition to the Central Arizona project if they were assmed that their existing uses up to 4.4 million acre-feet would be protected. The testimony shows at least three possible forms of assurance: (1) that the existing uses be protected against the new project until the construction of works assuring 7.5 million acre-feet of permanent consumptive use from the main stream is "firmly authorized"; (2) that the existing uses be protected "until the importation works are built"; and (3) that the existing uses be protected forever by requiring tbat the Central Ari- zona project "shall take the risk that the importation will deliver the water necessary to do this." The statutory language presented on behalf of the California users followed the third alternative, a per- petual priority which the Supreme Court previously had considered and declined to affirm. The proviso to subsection (b) of section 104 adopts a variation of the second alternative. The first alternative would provide no protec- tion in the interval between authorization and construction. The third alternative would, in effect, declare that California's 4.4 million was prior in right to Arizona's 2.8. Giving. California such a priority would be a reversal of the historic policy on the Colorado designed to secme the other States against the possibility that California would obtain a priority merely because she used the water first. The form in which the second alternative was suggested could lead to Arizona being anxious to build the importation works while California re- mained disinterested. If California were to be protected until the importation works were built, she might never feel the need to build them, for California has other water resomces available to her. The best way to put an end to the controversy appears to be to create a situation where both States have an interest in promoting the construction of new works. To create such interest, the proviso to subsection (b) of section 104 protects California for 25lears or. until the works are built, whichever occms first. The perib was selected bec.ause of the testimony that "even if importation of new water into the Colorado River were delayed a quarter centmy, there would be water enough, on the Secretary's forecast, for a full Central Arizona aqueduct while protecting existing uses as we (the California users) propose." Under this proviso the California users will be protected even if the estimate proves wrong. Meanwhile, both States will be under equal incentive to cooperate in procuring the building of the importation works in time to meet the anticipated shortage. Section 103 and the proviso to subsection (b) of section 104, must be considered together. The proviso is intended to stimulat~ cooperation. Section 103 is intended to assure thatthis cooperative attitude will be translated into accomplishment. Since importation works cannot be authorized now, the next best step is to provide that they will be ailthorized as soon as possible. There isllO reason to believe that the "' . \ ~, . ;".' <: . :.' ',' ~ . ',. " . ..'J ," c..- ". ":' . ~ '-' ... " '. , , '" ., ,,,J .",' ',,"-.,,::';. ... ",c,' ", ',' .. . ":. .