PUB00161 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 UDENWLR 290 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290 (Cite as: 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290) Page 10 allocated more than California's basic apportionment of 4.4 m.a.f./yr under the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Thus, the agreement also allocated interruptible surplus water. It just so happens that the entity most in need of a secure water supply, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("Metropolitan"), has the right to divert 550,000 acre-feet within the 4.4 m.a.f. limitation, and 662,000 acre-feet above the limitation. Metropolitan's diversion facility from the Colorado River-- the Colorado River Aqueduct--has a capacity of about 1.3 m.a.f./yr. Therefore, any limitation that may be imposed on overall use in California to 4.4 m.a.f./yr will limit Metropolitan to a diversion of less than one-half of the capacity of its conveyance facility. Second, the Agreement provides no cap or quantification of use within the priorities allocated to the agricultural districts entitled to divert the frrst 3.85 m.a.f. of California's allocation. Acreage (104,500 acres) limits the first priority, held by the Palo Verde Irrigation District, not any quantity of water. The Agreement gives the second priority, held by the Reservation Division of the Yuma Project, whatever amount of water it may need to irrigate 25,000 acres. Even more problematic, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District, and 16,000 acres of land on the Lower Mesa in the Palo Verde Valley share the third priority, with no allocation or quantification of rights between them, other than the 1934 Compromise Agreement that gives the Imperial District first call on third priority water. These matters have become quite significant in the discussions among the Basin States and within California over the last several years on the development of a California Plan to implement measures to limit California's use to 4.4 m.a.f./yr. As we will see in Part II of this article, the problem of Metropolitan's priority and capacity over and above California's basic apportionment, and the lack of defined quantification in the Agreement, are two of the major issues that California must resolve to eventually live within its means as provided in the Law of the River. V. THE MEXICAN WATER TREATY OF 1944 The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 rFN711 ("Treaty") is critical to a complete understanding of the Law of the River. In years to come, issues surrounding the environmental and urban demands in the Colorado River Delta and Mexicali Valley will become increasingly important. However, the importance of the Treaty for the purpose of this article is its requirement that the United States guarantee delivery of 1.5 m.a.f./yr to Mexico, plus up to an additional 200,000 acre-feet, if the Secretary of the Interior determines that surplus water is *310 available. [FN721 The Treaty made this allocation a "first call" on the Colorado River. In granting an element of certainty to Colorado River allocation, the Mexican delivery obligation also injected new issues into the relationship between the Upper and Lower Basins, which remain unresolved. [FN731 These issues, along with the growing concern about the condition of the environment in the Delta area, underscore the Upper Basin's agitation with California's continued reliance on surplus water in excess of its basic apportionment. If, as a result of the California Plan discussed in Part II of this article, California is able to implement measures to reduce its dependence on surplus water, then the states would improve their ability to take a positive role in resolving some of these new emerging issues. On the other hand, if the allocation framework of the Law of the River is undermined, the states will need to take a much more conservative approach. VI. THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMPACT As the 1946 Department of the Interior study suggested, the Upper Basin states reached an agreement in 1948 allocating water consUll1Pt~o~.V~h!S under the Compact. rFN741-'61fe"'flF8bJ~ for the ut>fleri,~icY~S-io}l states was i1~itei'tlaifi:dl'ethe ~'~~OO~:!M~m~pperBasinSllflply .after. ~~!~m~t:its obligation upder Article III( d) not to deplete the flow of the Coloradolttver ~t Lee Ferry below 75 m.a.f. every ten years. (FN751 t~ra'~9Jutiop, Article III(a)(2) of the Upper Colorado River Compact divided the consumptive use of water allotted to the Vpp:: Basin 'on a percentage basis;/,C,~lQ)Ii\.de~51. 7 5%; N~~~Mexiqo-l1.45%; Utah~23.0t>%; Wyomintt~14.00%; and Arizona-50,000 acre-feet. rFN761 The Upper Colorado River Compact also created the Upper Colorado River Basin Commission, a compact commission that continues to provide a valuable forum for the Upper Division states. The Upper Colorado River Basin Commission allows states to formulate positions, gather data and information, and advocate positions on federal legislation. Furthermore, this forum allows member states to develop operating strategies relative to federal reservoirs on the Colorado River, Mexican Treaty issues, and water supply and development issues in the Lower Basin. *311 VII. ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA During this same period, Arizona pressed Congress for construction of the Central Arizona Project ("Project"). However, @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.