My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12165
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12165
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:20:05 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:25:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.470
Description
Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
8/1/1963
Author
PSIAC
Title
Pacific Southwest Water Plan - Report - August 1963
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />00,555 <br /> <br />300,000 acre-feet to Nevada. Arizona and California are each to <br />get one-half of water in excess of 7,500,000 acre-feet. Under the <br />standards prescribed by Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project <br />Act (43 U. S. C. 617d. J, the Secretary of the Interior is author- <br />ized to allocate mainstream waters among the Scates of che Lower <br />Colorado River Basin and to determine which users within each <br />State shall get water. The Court held that this allocation has <br />been accomplished by (he Secretary in the basic water delivery <br />contracts with California users and the States of Arizona and <br />Nevada. The contracts with the States of Arizona and Nevada do <br />not exhaust the Secretary's power to require water users, other <br />than the States, to make further contracts with the Secretary. <br /> <br />The Court further held that the Secretary had discretion to <br />apportion shortages. ". . . (N)either the Project Act nor the <br />water contracts, II said the Court, "require the use of any particu- <br />lar formula for apportioning shortages, While the Secretary must <br />follow the standards set out in the Act, he nevertheless is free <br />to choose among the recognized methods of apportionment or to <br />devi se reasonable methods of hi s m<ln. I' <br /> <br />The effect of the Court's opinion on the rights of the States <br />and the United States is summarized below: <br /> <br />Arizona--The Court affirmed the allocation of Colorado River <br />water made by the Secretary of the Interior by contract requiring <br />the United States to deliver as much mainstream water as may be <br />necessary for the beneficial consumptive use of a maximum of <br />2,800,000 acre-feet per annum plus one-half of any surplus water <br />available for consumptive use over 7,500,000 acre-feet. This <br />share is not to be reduced by tributary uses in Arizona. At the <br />present time, mainstream uses in Arizona are substantially less <br />than 2,800,000 acre-feet; thus~ uses in Arizona may be expanded. <br /> <br />California--The Court held California is limited to a consump- <br />tive use of not more than 4,400,000 acre-feet per annum of main- <br />stream water plus not more than one-half of any surplus water <br />available for consumptive use. <br /> <br />At the present time California's consumptive use exceeds the <br />amount which, under the Court's opinion, will be available to it <br />as the water supply of the Colorado River is diminished by other <br />authorized depletions. Thus, California will have to seek new <br />sources of water to replace its limited Colorado River diversions. <br /> <br />Nevada--The Court confirmed Nevada's contract allocation of <br />sufficient mainstream water [0 satisfy a beneficial consumptive <br />use of not to exceed 300,000 acre-feet per annum from the Lower <br />Colorado River. This share is not to be diminished by tributary <br />uses in Nevada. <br /> <br />11-6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.