Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />COLORADO <br />75% <br /> <br />NEW MEXICO <br />.25% <br /> <br />UPPER BASIN <br /> <br />NET LOSSES BETWEEN <br />LEE FERRY AND MEXICO <br /> <br />Treaty is disputed <br /> <br />states according to percentages gIven. <br />Basin is subject to Ihe Mexican Treaty <br />Basin is 4.9 m on-acre-feet <br /> <br />0.05 <br /> <br />AR IZONA <br /> <br />LOWER BASIN <br /> <br />WYOMING <br />14% <br /> <br /> <br />MEXICO <br /> <br /> <br />2.8 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />The ab the Upper Basin to the Mllxlcan <br /> <br />Difference available to be divided among Upper Basin <br />If the virgin flaw of the river is 14 maf and the Upper <br />obligation, then the amount available for use in Upper <br /> <br />1.5 <br /> <br /> UTAH <br /> 23% <br /> EVAPORAT!ON LOSSES <br /> FROM RESERVOIRS <br /> UPPER BASIN, MEXICAN <br /> TREATY OBLIGATION * 0.0 OR <br /> 0.9 <br />I <br />i <br />h FERRY, ARIZONA ~ <br /> NEVADA <br /> :J <br /> CALIFORNIA <br /> - <br /> 4.4 <br /> <br /> <br />galion of <br /> <br />* <br />t <br /> <br />-$"~- <br />VI 10110 <br /> <br />'.vater supply according t.o uLa'vv <br /> <br />51 <br /> <br />Fig. 13. 1~lIocatlon of Colorado R!ver <br />River" (Mllllon-Acre-Feet). <br /> <br />SNOWPACK, CLOUD-SEEDING, AND THE COLORADO RIVER <br /> <br />court cases, and treaties that have dealt with this problem is <br />known by the legal profession as the "Law of the River." The <br />Law of the River has settled mflny issues, but many others re- <br />main unresolved. The problem of ownership or allocation of <br />WOSA-created water is not settled, but the Law of the River <br />does state who has the power to settle it and what claims could <br />be put upon it. How this question would ultimately be resolved <br />to a great extent determines the opportunities that would exist <br />for dealing with many problems that ap. operational WOSA <br />program would create (see Figure 13). <br />The first division of the Colorado River water was by <br />Interstate Compact in 1922. This compact divided the waters <br />between an Upper Basin and a Lower Basin. The second divi- <br />sion was made by Congress in the Boulder Canyon Project Act <br />of 1928. This act divided the Lower Basin portion among the <br />three Lower Basin States-California, Arizona, and Nevada- <br />even though at the time Congress was not sure that it had the <br />power to do so. The problem that Congress was trying to solve <br />was the refusal of Arizona to ratify the 1922 Interstate Compact <br />and to join in a Lower Basin interstate compact. It was neces- <br />sary to settle the matter of how much water b~longed to Arizona <br />before Congress could authorize the building of projects on the <br />river to use waterin Arizona. At the time it was thought that the <br />only way to finally settle Arizona's portion was litigation before <br />the Supreme Court. In 1952 Arizona vs. California was ini- <br />tiated. The opinion of the Court was finally rendered in 1963 <br />and in .1964 the Court i~sued its decree. The Supreme Court <br />found that the powers of both the division of waters between <br />states and the allocation of water within a state did, in fact belong <br />to the Congress. This was more power than Congress thought it <br />had under the Constitution. But finally Congress could get on <br />with authorizing projects to develop the water resources of the <br />Colorado River. <br />In 1968 Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Proj- <br />ect Act-Public Law 90-537. This legislation authorized the <br />Central Arizona Project and specified water priorities by guar~ <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />r <br />~. <br />