9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

represented a major step by Congress in the imposition of federal authority over the allocation, regulation and operation of the River. Although the state negotiators agreed on the Compact in 1922, it was required that the pact be ratified by each of the state legislatures and the Congress. That proved to be a monumental undertaking. By the time the Boulder Canyon Project Act was enacted in 1928, only four of the seven states had ratified the Compact. Arizona, California and Utah had not yet ratified the Compact. Arizona was quite adamant in its opposition to the Compact because of the reference to the million acre-feet and tributary water in Arizona. Congress recognized therefore, that it was not enough to simply authorize construction of a dam. There needed to be an orderly means to carry out the distribution and allocation of water in the Lower Basin without foreclosing the ability of the Upper Basin to develop its share of the River. As a resul t , and in order to bypass recalcitrant in Arizona, the effectiveness of the Boulder Canyon Act was contingent upon California limiting itself to a total water consumption from the Colorado River of 4.4 million acre- feet per year, and upon ratification of the Compact by any six states, including California. California, almost immediately thereafter, ratified the Compact and passed the California Limitation Act. This is the third document on the Law of the River list. The California Limitation Act was an irrevocable promise by the California legislature, for the benefit of all the other states, to limit California's use of water from the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre-feet. In 1931, shortly after the Boulder Canyon proj ect Act, California entities entered into the California Seven Party Agreement. This would be the fourth document on the list of the Law of the River. This is a mutual agreement among California water users to allocate and prioritize California's uses of Colorado River water, to develop the contract process for the delivery of water from Lake Mead to California water users. Because of the construction of the AII- American Canal and the importance of irrigation in Southern California, the Seven Party Agreement ensures that California irrigators in the Palo Verde, Coajella, and Imperial Valleys receive the first three priorities, totalling 3.85 million acre-feet of water out of that 4.4. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is the major water provider to the urban area on the California coastal plain, receives the fourth and fifth priorities, totalling 1.212 million acre-feet. However, the sum of 3.85 and 1.212 is more than 4.4. One of the larger problems we face on the River is the fact that only 550,000 of Metropolitan's priority of 1.2 million acre-feet is within that 4.4 million acre-feet. The irrigators receive the first 3.85 'million acre-feet, -Met receives the next 550 thousand acre-feet up to 4.4 million acre-feet, and then the remaining- demands of Met are over and above California's allocation of the Law of the River. As we have seen, droughts in California and the Los Angeles area increase the pressure on Met to continue to divert over and above that 4.4 million acre-feet allocation. The next item on the list of the Law of the River documents would be the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. The Mexican Water Treaty guaranteed Mexico the delivery of 1.5 million acre-feet per year. That is essentially water off the top of the system. There is a 12 .. ..