Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />'Ii <br /> <br />Comment: In the event of a future compact "call," the meaning of this article will be very <br />important and likely a subject of future interstate litigation. <br /> <br />Article III (f) <br /> <br />"Further equitable apportionment of the beneficial uses of the waters <br />of the Colorado River System unapportioned by paragraphs (a), (b), <br />and (c) may be made in the manner provided in paragraph (g) at any <br />time after October first, 1963, if and when either Basin shall have <br />reached its total beneficial use as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b)." <br /> <br />Comment: The total of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is now 17.5 mafper year. It is also more <br />evidence that the compact negotiators truly believed that they were not apportioning all of <br />the available water in the Colorado River System. Based on my reading of the compact <br />minutes, I'm convinced that the negotiators believed that there was at least 17 million acre <br />feet per year of natural flow at Lee Ferry62 and between 20 and 22 million acre feet per year <br />of natural flow of the Colorado River. 63 <br /> <br />It is also apparent that the 1922 Compact was just the first step in the ultimate apportionment <br />of the river between the Basins and Mexico. The compact would preserve the appropriative <br />rights of both basins up to 8.5 maffor the Lower Basin and 7.5 maffor the Upper Basin. But, <br />"at some future day a revision of the distribution of the remaining water will be made. ,,64 <br /> <br />Article VIII <br /> <br />"Present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the <br />Colorado River System are unimpaired by this compact. Whenever <br />storage capacity of 5,000,000 acre-feet shall have been provided on <br />the main Colorado River within or for the benefit ofthe Lower Basin, <br />then claims of such rights, if any, by appropriators or users of water <br />in the Lower Basin against appropriators or users of water in the <br />Upper Basin shall attach to and be satisfied with water that may be <br />stored not in conflict with Article Ill. <br /> <br />62 7 The minutes of the first eighteen session of the Colorado River Commission. These minutes suggest that the compact negotiators <br />were not concerned about virgin flows. Minutes of the sixth meeting, page 73, reports that the average actual flow at Yuma was <br />17,300,000 a1lyear. The commission derived their estimate of the virgin flow at Lee Ferry by assuming 86% of the Yuma flow was <br />from above Lee Ferry (minutes of the eighth meeting, page 23). This equals 14,964,000 af Adding back upstream depletions, Table <br />A, page 70, of2,267,000 afmakes a total of at least 17.23 mafper year. <br /> <br />63 There are numerous examples in the recorded testimony and correspondence that confirm this. Tyler reports that Carpenter testified <br />to the Senate in 1925 that the Colorado River had a total supply of21.6 maf, page 262. On page 249, Tyler reports that R.I. Meeker, <br />Colorado Deputy State Engineer, estimated the annual supply at 20.5 maf, thus he believed there was 4.5 mafforthe Mexican burden <br />and future apportionments. <br /> <br />64 Minutes of the eighteenth meeting, Chairman Hoover, page 32. <br /> <br />Page -22- <br />