WSP13055 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was a "surplus." The Lower Basin position would be that a "surplus" does not exist unless there is enough water in the River to not only permit the consumptive use of 16.0 MAP at the site of use, but also to accomodate all storage and con- veyance losses related to such on-site use. The Upper Basin, on the other hand, defines consumptive use as man-made deple- tions, which could exclude certain channel and evaporation losses. These losses have been estimated at .2 MAF and could result in yet another significant difference of opinion as to when a "surplus" exists under Article III(c). Finally, there is some question as to whether any Upper Basin obligation to Mexico includes part of the water necessary to make up for the channel and evaporation losses which will occur in the conveyance of water delivered by the Upper Basin at Lee Ferry to the Mexico border. It has been estimated that a discharge of 1.8 MAF at Lee Ferry will be necessary to deliver 1.5 MAF at the Mexico border. The Upper Basin position is that all of these losses should be borne by the Lower Basin because the Upper Basin would have already absorbed considerable losses in making any delivery at Lee Ferry. The Lower Basin would, of course, take a contrary position and attempt to charge the Upper Basin for some part of these losses. The Mexico obligation occurs at the inter- national border, the Lower Basin would maintain, and the equal sharing of any deficiency in meeting that obligation should extend to all conveyance and evaporation losses incurred in making deliveries at that point. e. Accounting for 1922 Compact Issues The following table illustrates how the reso- lution of the above compact issues, along with the variation in virgin flows, could affect the availability of water in the Upper Basin. "F: . . . ~ -14-