Laserfiche WebLink
<br />By limiting the contract to Lake Mead and mainstem water, the Special Master's ruling had <br />the effect of increasing Nevada's Colorado River supplies by approximately 100,000 af per year, the <br />amount of tributary uses.121 <br /> <br />Finally, there are a number of provisions in the decree which was issued on March 9, 1964122 <br />that need to be highlighted. Paragraphs II (B) (1), (2) and (3) control the release of water from Lake <br />Mead. <br /> <br />"(1) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as <br />determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy 7,500,000 acre- <br />feet of annual consumptive use in the aforesaid three States, then of <br />such 7,500,000 acre-feet of consumptive use, there shall be <br />apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet for use in Arizona, 4,400,000 acre- <br />feet for use in California, and 300,000 acre-feet for use in Nevada; <br /> <br />(2) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as <br />determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual <br />consumptive use in the aforesaid States in excess of 7,500,000 acre- <br />feet, such excess consumptive use in surplus, and 50% thereof shall <br />be apportioned for use in Arizona and 50% for use in California; <br />provided, however, that if the United States so contracts with Nevada, <br />then 46% of such surplus shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and <br />4% for use in Nevada; <br /> <br />(3) If insufficient mainstream water is available for release, as <br />determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual <br />consumptive use of7,500,000 acre-feet in the aforesaid three States, <br />then the Secretary of the Interior, after providing for satisfaction of <br />present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates without <br />regard to state lines and after consultation with the parties to major <br />delivery contracts and such representatives as the respective States <br />may designate, may apportion the amount remaining available for <br />consumptive use in such manner as is consistent with the Boulder <br />Canyon Proj ect Act as interpreted by the opinion of this Court, herein, <br />and with other applicable federal statutes, but in no event shall more <br />than 4,400,000 acre-feet be apportioned for use in California <br />including all present perfected rights;" <br /> <br />Until very recently there were no formal criteria to determine when there was sufficient water <br />to satisfy annual uses in excess of 7,500,000 af as contemplated by (2). The Interim Surplus <br />Guidelines (ISGs) criteria were adopted in 2000. The Secretary is currently developing criteria and <br /> <br />121 Nevada went into the case viewing it as a chance to get 500,000 af of Colorado River water as an equitable apportionment action. <br />The Master's ruling gave it about 50% of the 200,000 af increase it was seeking. <br /> <br />122376 U.S. 40. (1964). <br /> <br />Page -41- <br />