Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/ <br /> <br />001900 <br />deficiency for the Lower Basin III (a) and III (b) apportionments <br /> <br />must be equal to the deficiency for the Upper Basin's III(a) appor- <br /> <br />tionment before demand can be made on the states of the Upper Division <br /> <br />for water for Mexico. <br /> <br />It has been argued by some that reservoir evaporation <br /> <br />is not accountable as beneficial use under the 1922 Compact. <br /> <br />This argument does not appear well founded, but in the unlikely <br /> <br /> <br />event that it would prevail the'total amount of water accountable <br /> <br />as available for beneficial consumptive uses in the two basins <br /> <br />and for delivery to Mexico would be reduced by 1.2 maf annually <br /> <br />to account for reservoir evaporation in the Lower Basin and about <br /> <br />0.5 maf annually to account for reservoir evaporation in the <br /> <br />Upper Basin. However, if a conservative estimate of 10 maf <br /> <br />annually available in the Lower Basin is adopted, the Upper <br /> <br />Basin would still be able to deplete 6.5 maf of an average <br /> <br />annual Lee Ferry flow of 14 mafi but only about 6.0 maf of this <br /> <br />depletion would be chargeable as beneficial consumptive use. <br /> <br />It has also been argued that uses from Lower Basin tri- <br /> <br />butaries are not'accountable in determining the Lower Basin's <br /> <br /> <br />beneficial consumptive use and Treaty obligation., ,,( This argument, <br /> <br />'/ <br /> <br />and the argument concerning the accountability of reservoir <br /> <br />evaporation as beneficial consumptive use may arise out of a <br /> <br />misunderstanding of the 1963 Supreme Court decision in Arizona <br /> <br />vs. California, et ale <br /> <br />It is important to remember that the Court <br /> <br />in that case interpreted the Boulder Canyon Project Act and <br /> <br />found it unnecessary to interpret the Compact. Thus it was <br /> <br />unnecessary for the Court to rule on the q~estion of whether <br /> <br />reservoir evaporation and tributary uses are accountable as <br /> <br />beneficial consumptive use under the Compact. <br /> <br />The apportionnents <br /> <br />-ll- <br />