Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001970 <br /> <br />average, 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year to the lower basin states. Later, the <br />Colorado River Basin Project Act empowered the Secretary of Interior to operate <br />facilities to deliver more or less than 7.5 million acre-feet to the lower basin states in <br />years when he determine$ that there will be a surplus or shortage of water in the <br />river. A 1944 treaty with Mexico promised that the United States would deliver 1.5 <br />tnillion acre-feet of water each year to Mexico, except in surplus or shortage years. <br /> <br />In 1928, the Boulder Canyon Project Act divided the lower basin's first 7.5 <br />million acre-feet per year of mainstream water among California (4.4 million acre-feet <br />per year), Arizona (2.8 million acre-feet per year), and Nevada (300,000 acre-feet per <br />year). In its 1963 Opinion in Arizona v. California, the United States Supreme Court <br />upheld the division of the 1928 Act. The Court's decree also provided that California <br />would receive 50% of any surplus water, Arizona, 46%, and Nevada, 4%. The upper <br />basin's share - up to 7.5 million acre-feet after Mexico and the lower basin get their <br />guaranteed deliveries - was divided in a compact allocating Colorado 51.75%, Utah <br />23%, Wyoming 14%, New Mexico 11.25%, and Arizona 50,000 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />Reclamation operates the River and delivers water in accordance with water <br />use contracts developed pursuant to Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. <br />The underlying premise of this system is a ''trickle down" theory that allows water not <br />used by one contractor to be used by junior priority contractors. Because of the <br />interlocking nature of these contractual entitlements, water purchased from a specific <br />Lower Basin contractor could be transferred to the Delta only if all contract holders <br />and the three lower Basin states waive their rights to use the purchased water. <br /> <br />The 1963, Opinion and the 1964 Decree of the US Supreme Court in Arizona <br />v. California also limits the discretion of the Secretary regarding deliveries of water. <br />Specifically, Article II (A) of the Decree enjoins the Secretary from releasing water for <br />use in the U.S except to holders of water service contracts and to satisfy particular <br />priorities and purposes. It exempts from these priorities any releases by the United <br />States to Mexico unless "in satisfaction of its obligation to the United States of Mexico <br />under the Treaty dated February 3, 1944..." <br /> <br />Although some have read the decree as precluding the delivery of water to <br />Mexico in excess of 1.5 million acre-feet per year, changes in delivery strategies <br />beyond the Treaty have been agreed upon through agreements (Minutes) between <br />the Mexico and US Sections of the International Boundary Commission. Minute 242, <br />for example, provided for the construction of the Yuma Desalting Plant and the <br />bypass of Wellton-Mohawk return flows without' charge against Mexico's 1.5 million <br />acre-feet per year treaty delivery entitlement. A similar mechanism is available to <br />transfer water to the Delta if the two Nations agree. <br /> <br />B. Salinity Concerns ' <br /> <br />The high levels of salinity in the water delivered to Mexico began causing <br />serious problems between the United States and Mexico in the 1960s. When the <br />concentration of salts in the water delivered to Mexico increased radically, crop <br />