7754 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . . e e 3 exactly. However, a general review of th~ contributions of the major Upper Basin tributaries shows that the Green River Ba~in flow has been reduced by 5 percentage points, I the Colorado River Basin by 13 peircentage points, and the San Juan River Basin by 3 percentage points. The extent to which the rema1.n1.ng flows can be maintained and used for instream purposes such as fish and wildlife, and recreation depends primarily on the compacts, agreem1nts, and laws and treaties in and between Upper and Lower Basin States and Mexico. B. Legal and Institutional Constraints The major legal constraints that impose operational restrictions' on our facilities include the Colorado River Compact!/, Upper Colorado River Basin Compact~/, the Mexican Water Treatyl/, and the Colorado River Storage Project Act~/. The Colorado River Compact, completed in 1922, provided for the division of water between the Upper and Lower Basin States; anticipated the demands of an eventual Mexican Water Treaty; and imposed certain restrictions on the quantities and scheduling of flows, The Compact which was drafted by representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States apportioned, 1.n perpetuity, 7.5 MAF per year to the uPpe~~~~ States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and 7,5 MAF per year to the Lower Basin States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The compact further provided that the States of the Upper Basin would not cause the flow of the Colorado River to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 MAP for any period of 1/ Colorado River Compact signed November 24, 1922, at Santa Fe, New Mexico. 2/ Upper Colorado River Basin Compact signed October 11, 1948, at Santa Fe, New :--lexica. 3/ Mexican Treaty and Protocol signed in Washington, DC, February 23, 1944, and Protocol completed November 8, 1945. 4/ Act bf April 11, 1956, Public Law 84-485, 70 Stat. 105.