Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001433 <br /> <br />the expense of state authority and diminished the potency of <br /> <br />interstate compacts. <br /> <br />Despite express disclaimers of any <br /> <br />intent to affect issues between the Upper and Lower Basins, <br /> <br />the decision's disregard of Arizona's and Nevada's tribu- <br /> <br />taries in determining how to divide the waters of the <br /> <br />"Colorado River System" has aggravated, if not generated, the <br /> <br />current controversy over the Upper Basin's Mexican Treaty <br />obligations30 (to be elaborated later in this paper). The <br />Upper Basin is dismayed and the Lower Basin delighted by the <br />notion that, if the Lower Basin's tributaries can be dis- <br /> <br />counted so effortlessly by the Supreme Court for Lower Basin <br /> <br />apportionment purposes, the Court might not with similar <br />abandon overlook those same tributaries if it were called <br /> <br />upon to decide whether there is "surplus" water under the <br /> <br />provisions of Article III (c) of the Compact to be used to <br /> <br />satisfy the Mexican Treaty burden. To the extent there is <br />such a surplus, the Upper Basin's Treaty obligation is <br /> <br />diminished. <br /> <br />Excluding the Lower Basin's tributaries below Lee's <br /> <br />Ferry, the contributions from and allocations of Colorado <br /> <br />River water to the Basin states look approximately as follows <br /> <br />as a result of the 1922 Compact, the Upper Colorado River <br /> <br />Basin Compact, and Arizona v. California: <br /> <br />Arizona <br />California <br />Colorado <br /> <br />Contribution <br />to Flow <br />(per cent) <br />1 <br /> <br />71 <br /> <br />Apportionment31 <br />of Water <br />(per cent) <br />20.7 <br />30.6 <br />24.3 <br /> <br />-13- <br />