PUB00161

• Year: 2001
• Title: an Upper basin Perspective on Califonia's Claims to Water from the Colorado River
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Author: James S. Lochhead
• Description: an Upper basin Perspective on Califonia's Claims to Water from the Colorado River
• Publications - Doc Type: Legal Analysis

,...
4 UDENWLR 290
4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290
(Cite as: 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290)

Page 2

III. The 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act... .......... ...... ............... 306

IV. The 1931 California Seven-Party Agreement ........... .... .............. 307

V. The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944

.......................... .... .............. .. ................................

309

VI. The Upper Colorado River Compact... ................. ....... ........... 310

VII. Arizona v. California ................................................ 311

VIII. The 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act ........ ............ ..... 312

IX. The 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act

.......... ........ ........................................

313

X. Some Major Issues for the Upper Basin Under the Law of the River ....... 316

A. The Compact Negotiators Over-Estimated Water Supply.......... ........ 317

B. The Compact Negotiators Left Unresolved Issues. ........... ........... 320

C. The Negotiators Did Not Foresee the Emergence of Urban Demands and

Environmental and Recreational Values ..... ................... .... ....... 321

D. Interbasin Water Transfers and Marketing was not Contemplated by the

Compact Negotiations and is Illegal under the Law of the River ..... ..... 322

1. Interbasin Water Sales or Transfers Would Violate the Colorado

River Compact ........................................................... 324

2. Interbasin Sales and Transfers Would Also Violate the Upper

Colorado River Compact .................................................. 327

3. Interbasin Sales and Transfers Would Violate the Terms of the

Decree of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California

328

XI. Conclusion ............................................................ 329

*291 I. INTRODUCTION
Even before the negotiation of the 1922 Colorado River Compact rFN11 ("Compact"), the Upper Division States [FN21 in
the Colorado River Basin were concerned about securing and protecting a reliable water supply for their use and
development. That concern persists, and is manifested in their positions relative to current issues that include endangered
species; marketing, leasing, and banking; Indian reserved rights; salinity; and the needs and values of the inexorable in-
migration of people to the West. The Upper Basin (FN31 has also felt itself under constant threat of the prospect that rapid.
development in California could give rise to a priority of use-- ultimately usurping future development and economic
opportunity in the Upper Basin. As a result, issues in California have always been at the top of the Upper Basin's agenda and
remain a paramount Upper Basin concern.

California's dependence on the use of water surplus to its basic apportionment rFN41 under the Law of the River (FNSl
represents the most *292 current "California problem." For many years, California has been using as much as 800,000 acre-

@ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.