Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0015.;4 <br /> <br />920 <br /> <br />ECOLOGY lAW QUARTERLY <br /> <br />[Vol. 28:903 <br /> <br />River."93 As interpreted by the Court, the BCPA allocated Arizona <br />2.8 maf; California 4.4 maf;and Nevada 0.3 maf. 94 The Court <br />also found that the Act only allocated mainstream waters; each <br />Lower Basin state retained the right to allocate the total flow of <br />its own tributaries.95 This ruling allowed Arizona to keep the <br />entire flow of the Gila River in addition to its 2.8 maf allocation.96 <br />Moreover, the Court held that Section 6 of the BCPA <br />grandfathered in pre-1929 state and federal water rights along <br />the Colorado under the category of "present perfected rights. "97 <br />These rights enjoy the most senior priority; in the event of <br />shortage, the Secretary has discretion to apportion the available <br />water to other Colorado users only after satisfying these pre- <br />1929 rights.98 These perfected rights also include the reserved <br />rights of the five Lower Colorado River Tribes. The Court found <br />that 917,552 acre-feet of Lower Basin water was reserved for use <br />by the Chemehuevi, Cocopah, Yuma, Colorado River, and Fort <br />Mojave reservations. 99 <br />Arizona v. California thus created a large allocation of water <br />that is essentially immune from shortages on the Lower <br />Colorado. For instance, the Imperial Irrigation District (lID) <br />currently has a right to 2.6 maf (out of total delivery rights to 3.3 <br />maf), or the amount necessary to irrigate 424,145 acres, <br />whichever is less.1OO As a result, while lID would face some cuts <br />in usage during a severe shortage, lID can continue to irrigate <br />even when Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and San Diego <br />receive no water. <br />Congress further refined this priority system in the Colorado <br />River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA).lOl This legislation <br />authorized the Central Arizona Project (CAP), fulfUling Arizona's <br />long-standing desire to use some of its allocation in the central <br />part of the state.102 To gain California's support for the bill, <br /> <br />ti <br />t, <br />~ <br />1. <br /> <br />93. See id. at 564-565. <br />94. See id at 573. In the event of the availability of a surplus of water, the court <br />initially allocated 50% of any surplus to California. and 50% to Arizona. Id By later <br />decree. the Court modified this structure to allow a 4% share of any surplus for <br />Nevada, to be taken from Arizona's 50% share. See Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. <br />340. 342 (1964). <br />95. See Arizona, 373 U.S. at 567-569. <br />96. See id at 567-569. <br />97. See Arizona, 376 U.S. at 341. <br />98. See id at 342. <br />99. See generally Arizona v. California, 466 U.S. 144 (1984). <br />100. See Arizona v. California, 439 U.S. 419, 429 (1979). <br />101. Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA), 43 U.S.C. ~~ 1501-56 <br />(1968). <br />102. See id. <br /> <br />I <br />