My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00155
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
PUB00155
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:24:22 AM
Creation date
1/18/2008 1:00:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2007
Title
The Colorado River The Story of a Quest for Certainty on a Diminishing River
CWCB Section
Administration
Author
Eric Kuhn
Description
The Colorado River The Story of a Quest for Certainty on a Diminishing River
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~::. <br /> <br />guidelines to address when there is insufficient mainstream water as contemplated by (3) (referred <br />to as shortage criteria). <br /> <br />While Colorado and its sister Upper Division states were not a party to the Arizona v. <br />California decision (except for New Mexico and Utah's Lower Basin tributaries), the Upper Basin <br />has been impacted in a significant manner by the decision. In his 1986 paper, John Carlson put it <br />this way: "by excluding the tributaries from the allocation, the court instantaneously vaporized most, <br />if not all, of the "surplus" water above the Article III (a) 7.5 m.af apportionment" and "despite <br />express disclaimers of any intent to affect issues between the Upper and Lower Basins, the decision's <br />disregard of Arizona's and Nevada's tributaries in determining how to divide the waters of the <br />"Colorado River System" has aggravated, if not generated the current controversy over the Upper <br />Basin's Mexican Treaty." Carlson also believed that the decision "expanded Federal controlover <br />interstate water rights at the expense of state authority and diminished the potency of interstate <br />compacts. 123 <br /> <br />My own personal views are that the Supreme Court and Special Master Ritkind may have <br />decided that this was a situation where a little bit of judicial activism and creative interpretation of <br />the 1928 Act offset the potential for a great deal more uncertainty and chaos had the Court decided <br />to take head on the unresolved 1922 Compact issues related to the tributaries. It is even possible that <br />after the dust would have settled from an all out legal fight over the 1922 Compact, Delph <br />Carpenter's objectives oflong term certainty for the Upper Basin states-of-origin would have been <br />impacted or even defeated. <br /> <br />Upper Basin Development During the 1950s and 1960s <br /> <br />Within Colorado, the City of Denver further expanded its system into the West Slope. <br />Williams Fork Reservoir was enlarged in 1957 and construction of its Dillon Reservoir and Roberts <br />Tunnel System was completed in 1964. Dillon Reservoir is Denver's largest reservoir and largest <br />source of yield to its system It is located on the Blue River, a tributary to the Colorado River just <br />west of the Continental Divide. Dillon Reservoir is connected to the South Platte River by the 26 <br />mile Roberts Tunnel. <br /> <br />Because Dillon Reservoir is located upstream of Green Mountain Reservoir, a component <br />ofthe Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT), and because Dillon has a priority junior to Green <br />Mountain, Denver Water had to reach an agreement with the United States and the East and West <br />Slope beneficiaries of the C-BT Project before the Dillon Project was considered feasifile. Subject <br />to certain conditions, Denver can divert to the East Slope, water that would have been called by the <br />Green Mountain Power Plant. The compromise is adjudicated in what is referred to as the Blue River <br />Decree. Congress approved the Blue River Decree in the 1956 CRSP A. <br /> <br />In August 1962, Congress approved the construction of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. ]24 <br /> <br />123 Carlson and Boles, page 12-13. <br /> <br />124 76 Stat. 389. (1962). The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is not a participating project under CRSP A. <br /> <br />Page -42- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.