My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Compacts, Decrees, and Treaties Affecting CO's Water
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Compacts, Decrees, and Treaties Affecting CO's Water
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:36:53 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 2:00:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.350
Description
Legislation
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Author
CWCB
Title
Compacts, Decrees, and Treaties Affecting CO's Water
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
(1) Authorized the Central Arizona ProJect. This project, <br />now under construction, involves the construction of <br />pumps, canals and reservoirs to convey water from <br />Lake liavasu on the lower Colorado River into the <br />Central Arizona area (Phoenix area, and perhaps the <br />Tucson area also). While the legislation does not so <br />state, the amount of water intended to be diverted is <br />1.2 million acre-feet annually, if this amount is avail- <br />ab1e. It is doubtful that this amount will ever be <br />available and it most certainly will noC be available <br />when the Upper Basin reaches its full authorized <br />depletion. <br />(2) As against the Central Arizona Project, guarantees the <br />state of California 4.4 million acre-feet of water <br />annualiy. This guarantee was California's price for <br />supporting the legislation. Through this provision, <br />California avoids the most serious effects of the <br />Supreme Court decision. As mattexs now stand, the state <br />of Arizona gained little, if anything, as the result of <br />the Supreme Court decision, in terms of ultimate water <br />supply. <br />(3) Five participating projects in Colorado and one in Utah <br />were authorized for construction. For the Colorado <br />projects, the Iegislation prescribes that "as nearly as <br />practicable" they shall be completed not later than the <br />date of the first delivery of water from the Central <br />Arizona Projecfi, <br />(4) Title VI of the act contains various provisions whieh <br />were insisted upon by the Upper Basin states in an <br />--- attempt to clarify some of the ambiguous provi.sions of <br />the Colorado Ri.ver Compact. A principal provision of <br />tha.t title is contained in Section 602(a) as follows: <br />"SLC. 602 (a) In order to comply with and carry <br />out the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the <br />Upper Colorado P.iver Basin Compact, and the Mexican <br />Water Treaty, the Secretary shall propose criteria for <br />the coordinated long-range operation of the resex'voirs <br />constructed and operated under the authority of the <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act, the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act,.and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment <br />Act. To effect in part the purposes expressed in this <br />paragraph, the criteria shall m,alce provision for the <br />storage of warer in storage units of the Colorado River <br />storage project and releases of water from Lake Powell <br />in the following listed order of priority: <br />(1) releases to supply one-half the deficiency <br />deseribed in article III(e) of the Colorado R3.ver <br />-18-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.