Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Because of this percentage approach, the acre-foot <br />entitlements for each Upper Basin state, except Arizona, will <br />depend on how the issues posed by the 1922 Compact and the <br />1968 Act are resolved, and any reduction in the Upper Basin <br />entitlement will consequently reduce each Upper Basin's <br />state's acre-foot entitlement under the 1948 Compact. This <br />relationship is illustrated in the fol10wing table. <br /> <br />TABLE 3: 1948 COMPACT ACRE-FOOT ENTITLEMENTS <br /> <br />A. If most of the 1922 Compact issues are resolved against <br />the Upper Basin and the Upper Basin's acre foot entitle- <br />ment ranges from 5.25 to 6.75 MAF/yr. (Table 1, Part B), <br />the acre-foot entitlements for each Upper Basin state <br /> <br />are: <br /> MAF/yr. <br />Virgin Flows at Lee Ferryl 13.5 15.0 <br />Water Available to Upper Basin2 <br />Under 1922 Compact 5.25 6.75 <br />Upper Basin Apportionments <br />Arizona Deduction .05 .05 <br />Colorado (51.75%) 2.691 3.468 <br />Utah (23.00%) 1.196 1.541 <br />Wyoming (14.00%) .728 .938 <br />New Mexico (11.25%) .585 .754 <br /> <br />B. If the Lower Basin goes unaugmented and uncurtailed, the <br />water left to the upper Basin (Table 2) could be allo- <br />cated on this same basis. In this event, each basin <br />state would be entitled to the fol10wing acre-foot <br />amounts: <br /> <br />Virgin Flows at Lee Ferryl <br /> <br />Water Available to Upper Basin3 <br /> <br />Upper Basin Apportionments <br />Arizona Deduction <br /> <br /> Colorado (51.75%) <br /> Utah (23.00%) <br /> Wyoming (14.00%) <br /> New Mexico (ll.25%) <br />1. See charts supra. <br />2. Table 1, Part B, supra. <br />3. Table 2, ~ . <br />supra. <br /> <br />13.5 15.0 <br />3.707 5.207 <br /> .~._' .. <br />.05 .05 <br />1.893 2.669 <br />.841 1.186 <br />.512 .722 <br />.411 .580 <br /> <br />-22- <br />