Laserfiche WebLink
<br />39 <br /> <br />One of the factors that the Colorado delegation "anted the Commission <br />to consider also related to this sublject of holdover reservoirs. It proposed <br /> <br />the question of hOl, the main stream reservoir losses to evaporeltion 1/ould <br /> <br />be charged; in other ,;ords, since some of those reservoirs 1/ould be [or the <br /> <br />joint benefit of all the states in assisting the Upper Basin to melke its required <br /> <br /> <br />deliveries to Lee Ferry, would it be fair to charye tllese losses due to evapor- <br /> <br /> <br />ation only against the allotment of the state in which the reservoir existed? <br /> <br /> <br />This concern of COlorado was evcntually provided for in the compact, 'Ihich <br /> <br /> <br />states that if a reservoir is constructed in one state to help all thc Upper <br />Basin states to meet their Lee Perry obligations, the Commission will determine <br />..hat proportion of that reservoir is used for this joint benefit to the Up;:>er <br />fusin. The proportion of the losses would then be charged severally to each <br />state in proportion to the percentage of Utlper Basin water that eacll state used. 133 <br /> <br />For example, since Colorado's apportionmEnt of Upper Basin Welter was set in the <br /> <br />compact as 51.75 percent, 51.75 percent of the evaporation losses in a rcservoir <br />for thc common gOOd would be charged against Colorado. Si milarly, Utah I.,as accorded <br /> <br /> <br />23 percent of available Upper Basin water, and would be charged for 23 percent of <br /> <br /> <br />the loss, Wyoming- 14 percent, and New Mexico - 11.25 percent. Since the northern <br /> <br /> <br />tip of Arizona only received a fixed 50,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, <br /> <br /> <br />its obligation for these losses would be negligible. <br /> <br /> <br />Included in the list of factors that Colorado's delegation presented to <br /> <br /> <br />the Commission \~s one dealing with a concern a~out projects built in one <br /> <br /> <br />state for the benefit of one or more other state, and not for the state in which <br /> <br /> <br />it exists. Breitenstein asked whether or not pO\ler of eminent domain could be <br /> <br /> <br />exercised by one state to acquire property rights in another state for the use <br /> <br /> <br />of Colorado River ~ter. He also raised the question that must have been in the <br />