Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001447 <br /> <br />Kalmbach, Inc. at the request of the Upper Colorado River <br />Commission produc~d a similar result. This analysis con- <br />cluded that 6.3 m.a.f. of water per annum would remain for <br />Upper Basin consumption if 7.5 m.a.f. were delivered on the <br />average at Lee's Ferry and if no additional water was <br />required at Lee's Ferry to serve the Mexican Treaty.S8 <br />However, if the latter assumption were reversed to conform to <br />the Interior Department's outlook, then only S.55 m.a.f. of <br />water would remain for the Upper Basin. On the basis of the <br />Interior Department's S.8 m.a.f. prediction, which may be <br />overly optimistic, New Mexico would receive 647,000 acre- <br />feet, instead of its full entitlement of 838,000,S9 of the <br />7.5 m.a.f. Article III(a} Upper Basin apportionment, Colorado <br />would receive 2,976,000 acre-feet instead of 3,8SS,000,60 and <br />Utah would receive 1,328,000 acre-feet instead of <br />1,713,500.61 Utah, for one, has apparently already resigned <br />itself to a life permanently within the confines of its <br />shrunken apportionment.62 <br />The Upper Basin has not to date, however, experienced <br />immediate hardships from this limit for the reason that it <br />has yet to try to exploit its full 7.5 m.a.f. apportionment. <br />Development of water uses in the Upper Basin has been <br />"unexpectedly slow. II Environmental Defense Fund v. Costle, <br />657 F.2d 27S, 293 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The Bureau of Reclama- <br />tion estimated Upper Basin consumptive uses in 1981 at 3.840 <br />m.a.f., including 686,000 acre-feet evaporative 10sses, and <br /> <br />-22- <br />