Laserfiche WebLink
<br />actual projected demands.t (2,4,9) <br /> <br />The same held true for electric power. California demanded <br /> <br />two and a half times the total power potential of the Hoover <br /> <br />Dam! But this time, Arizona and N3vada forced the Bureau of <br /> <br />Reclamation to reserve a third of the output for their future <br /> <br />use. California was thereby limited to 64% of tne power pro- <br />duction from the dam.2 (4) <br /> <br />As a result of all these political games, the de facto <br /> <br />law of the Colorago River was not one of strict prior appro- <br /> <br />priation but one of litigated appropriation reserves be~ween <br /> <br />states. Within most western states, however, the w8ter rights <br /> <br />were basically ajudicated on the doctrine of prior appropria- <br />tion.3 <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />1 The total allocation to the Lower Basin States (California, <br />Arizona, and New Mexico) was 7,500,000 acre-feet. California's <br />limit was 4,400,000 acre-feet, or well over half of the alloca- <br />tion. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />2 California I s combined 11'1'3ter and nower alloc,..,tioD we,-e exceed- <br />ingly adventageous, especiall; forAa state that does not add <br />one drop to the flow of the Colorado. <br /> <br />3 In ~3sternstates where irrigation was ~ot common, water rights <br />were based upon common la~ or riparian-right.s <br />