WSP12533 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DJ15J5 2002] THE lAST GREEN lAGOON 921 however, Arizona had to guarantee that California could take its full share before any water was delivered to CAP.103 As a result, CAP has historically had the lowest priority allocation - after California, Nevada, present perfected rights, and the Tribes. 104 This problem has been solved - at least temporarily - by the execution of a contract between the State of Arizona and MWD.105 As discussed in Section N below, in exchange for Arizona's support of the new Interim Surplus Criteria, MWD was forced to provide Arizona with a 1 maf "insurance policy" under which it will forego its own use in favor of Arizona in the event of shortages on the river.106 However, after. the expiration of this agreement, CAP water will again be the first on the chopping block. As a result, CAP's long term reliability as a supply of water may shrink as demands on Upper Basin water grow. While BOR predicted an average annual delivery of 1.2 maf over the life of CAP, critics estimate it will fall as development upstream reduces surpluses. 107 B. Keeping the Status Quo: Restrictions on Transfers in the Law of the River Although transfers of water from one user to another, particularly market-based transfers, would have allowed the water of the Colorado to migrate over time to higher economic value uses, the politics surrounding the Law of the River have long been dominated by efforts to block such transfers. In fact, the development .of the Law of the River has been driven largely by fear. The 1922 Compact negotiations began in response to Upper Basin states' fears that Lower Basin states, particularly California, would eventually acquire rights to the entire flow of the Colorado, leaving the Upper Basin with inadequate water for future economic development. lOB Similar fears drove subsequent 103. SeeAbbott, supra note 68. at 1408. 104. See Robert J. Glennon, Coattails of the Past; Using and Financing the Central AnzonaProject, 27 ARIz. ST. L.J. 677. 711-15 (1995). 105. See discussion infra Part IV. 106. See discussion infra Part IV. 107. SeeFRADKlN, supra note 9, at 259. AriZona can argue that the Colorado River Compact requires the Upper Basin to release 75 maf every 10 years. See Glennon, supra note 104, at 711-712. However, although the Upper Basin is obligated to deliver at least 75 maf to the Lower Basin every 10 years. under Article lll(c) of the Compact, the Upper and Lower Basins may share the obligation to deliver Mexico's entitlement equally if surplus water is not available to satisfY the demand. See Colorado River Compact, supra note 47, article lll(c),(d). 108. See Sergio J. Viscoli. The Resource Conservation Group Proposal to Lease Colorado River Water, 31 NAT. RESOURCES J. 887, 892 (1991).