Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Oil1475 <br /> <br />The agreement that the Compact Commissioners intended to <br /> <br />express was that each Basin should be allocated an equal <br /> <br />portion of the water of the River, except that the Lower <br /> <br />Basin would receive an additional 1.0 m.a.f. to account for <br /> <br />its tributaries. <br /> <br />They failed to execute this intention <br /> <br />because of their mutual mistake as to the effect of Paragraph <br /> <br />(d) in relation to the amount of water actually flowing in <br /> <br />the River system. <br /> <br />The Commissioners' underlying purpose is manifest in the <br /> <br />language of Article III itself. In light of the shortage of <br /> <br />water which has persisted since the Compact was signed, <br /> <br />attention has become fixated, to the exclusion of all else, <br /> <br />on the prohibition in Paragraph (d) against the Upper Basin <br />depleting the flow of the River below 75 m.a.f. every ten <br /> <br />years. <br /> <br />But the crux of Article III actually lies in Para- <br /> <br />graph (a), which states: <br /> <br />There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River <br />system in per?etuity to the Upper Basin and to the <br />Lower Basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial <br />consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per <br />annum. ... (emphasis added) <br /> <br />Thus, the quantity of water apportioned to the Upper Basin <br /> <br />was intended to be equal to that apportioned to the Lower, <br /> <br />and it was intended to be equal in perpetuity. <br /> <br />Nevada <br /> <br />commissioner (and subsequently Governor) J.G. Scrugham noted <br /> <br />this latter aspect when during a debate on the length of the <br /> <br />time period before the surplus water was apportioned under <br /> <br />Paragraphs (f) and (g), he exclaimed, "All that in view of <br /> <br />-50- <br />