Laserfiche WebLink
<br />b. Benchmarks for Upper Basin Tributary <br />Apportionment: A Middle Scenario <br /> <br />All of the Upper Colorado River tributaries flow through <br />two or more Upper Basin States. With a few relatively minor <br />exceptions, however, the 1948 Compact does not apportion each <br />statewide 1948 Compact entitlement among these tributaries. <br />For the most part, each state is left with the discretion to <br />apportion its 1948 Compact share to those Colorado River tri- <br />butaries within its borders, and it would be a speculative <br />venture indeed to predict how each state might exercise this <br />discretion. <br /> <br />It is possible, however, to identify the level of con- <br />sumptive use or depletion on each tributary in each Upper <br />Basin state at which each state must exercise this discretion <br />and at which compact allocation decisions must be made within <br />a state or between states. The following Tables 4, 5, 6, and <br />7 illustrate how this might be done for Colorado, Utah, <br />Wyoming and New Mexico. <br /> <br />These tables start with the following set of 1948 <br />Compact acre-foot entitlements for the entire Upper Basin: <br /> <br />Colorado (51.75%) <br />Utah (23%) <br /> <br />MAF/yr. <br />2.691 <br />1.196 <br />.728 <br /> <br />Wyoming (14%) <br />New Mexico (11.25%) <br /> <br />.585 <br /> <br />As noted above, these acre-foot entitlements are based in <br />turn on the fol10wing set of assumptions about the availabi- <br />lity of water in the entire Upper Basin: 1) virgin flows at <br />Lee Ferry will average 13.5 MAF/yr.1 2) these virgin flows <br />will go unaugmented1 3) most 1922 Compact issues will be <br />resolved against the Upper Basin1 and 4) the curtailment <br />scheme in the 1968 Act will be enforced against the Lower <br />Basin. <br /> <br />~. . <br />! ~ <br /> <br />-23- <br />