Laserfiche WebLink
<br />allocations to users within each state without regard to state law, in effect making the <br /> <br />Secretary a "federal water master" on the Lower Colorado River. <br /> <br />Section 5 of the BCP A provides that "no person shall have or be entitled to <br /> <br />have the use for any purpose of the water stored [by the project] except by contract <br /> <br />[with the Secretary]." The Secretary's exclusive allocation authority under section 5 <br /> <br />is unique in federal reclamation law, which the Supreme Court has held requires the <br /> <br />Secretary to comply with state law in the acquisition and administration of water <br /> <br />rights for reclamation projects unless it conflicts with express provisions of the <br /> <br />federal authorizing legislation, in which event the latter controls. California v. <br /> <br />United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1968). Thus the Secretary has acquired water rights <br /> <br />under state law for all federal reclamation projects in the Upper Basin and for some <br /> <br />in the Lower Basin, but no appropriation was made under either Arizona, California <br /> <br />or Nevada law for the water stored in Lake Mead for allocation to those states. <br /> <br />The interstate apportionments of Lower Colorado River mainstream water <br /> <br />made by the Secretary to Arizona, California and Nevada pursuant to the BCP A <br /> <br />were made by "master contracts" with the States of Arizona (1944) and Nevada (1942, <br /> <br />1944), and a number of individual contracts with California water agencies in the <br /> <br />early 1930's. A normal year apportionment of 7.5 (MAF) of "beneficial consumptive <br /> <br />use" by the Secretary allocates 2.8 MAF to Arizona, 4.4 MAF to California, and <br /> <br />300,000 AF to Nevada, with increased deliveries in "surplus" years and reduced <br /> <br />24 <br />