Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001454 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />The deficiency of water in the Colorado River has <br /> <br />generated two fundamental issues concerning the application <br /> <br />of the 1922 Compact: <br /> <br />1. Should the Upper Basin forgo, as Lower Basin <br />observers presume it must, a portion of its Article III (a) <br />allocation in order to deliver to the Lower Basin 75 <br /> <br />m.a.f. every ten years under Article III{d)~ and <br />2. How should the burden of fulfilling the Mexican <br />Treaty obligation be distributed between the two Basins. <br />The latter issue, sometimes referred to as the "Gila <br /> <br />River Problem", was summarized in a 1979 report to the <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Congress by the Comptroller General: <br /> <br />A major dispute exists between the Upper and <br />Lower Basins over supplying the 1.5 m.a.f. commit- <br />ment to Mexico. The Colorado River Compact states <br />that any required delivery of water to Mexico shall <br />be supplied first from water surplus to the basic <br />apportionment from the Colorado River system (7.5 <br />m.a.f. to the Upper Basin, 8.5 m.a.f. to the Lower <br />Basin) and if the surplus is insufficient, the <br />burden of such deficiency shall be borne equally by <br />the two basins. <br /> <br />The Lower Basin States contend that there is <br />no surplus and the Upper Basin's share of the <br />Mexican treaty delivery obligation is therefore <br />one-half of the total obligation of 1.5 m.a.f. plus <br />one-half of the losses incurred in delivering the <br />water from Lee Ferry to the Mexican border. The <br />Upper Basin states believe that surplus water <br />exists in the Lower Basin and therefore they are <br />not required to release any water to meet the <br />Mexican treaty obligation.85 <br /> <br />IV. POSSIBLE AVENUES OF RELIEF FROM UNINTENDED RESTRICTIONS <br /> <br />A. Resolution of the Controversy Under Article VI of <br /> <br />-29- <br />