7041

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7041
• Author: Upper Colorado River Commission.
• Title: Forty-Third Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission
• USFW Year: 1991.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects.
• Copyright Material: NO

14.2 million acre-feet and the average annual historic flow is 11.1 million
acre-feet. Records for this series of years are based upon actual measure-
ments of flows at Lees Ferry. The ten-year moving average flow since
1922 is considerably less than the ten-year moving average flow prior to
1922.

(9) Two completely unrelated ten -year periods of minimum flows have
occurred since 1930. During these periods, 1931-1940 and 1954-1963,
the average annual virgin flow amounts to only 11.8 million acre-feet.

(10) For a 12-year period, 1953-1964, the average annual virgin flow
amounts to only 11.6 million acre-feet.

(11) Since Glen Canyon Dam was closed in 1963, the estimated virgin
flow for the subsequent 28 years is 14.6 million acre-feet. The estimated
historical flow for the same period (1963-1991) is 9.8 million acre-feet.

B. LEGAL

1. WATER NEWSLETTER
The legal staff continues to inform the eommissioners, their advisers,
and other interested parties about developments in the courts, eongress,
and certain Federal agencies through the Water Newsletter. eurrent
information can be found in the newsletter. In addition, the legal staffhas
prepared legal memoranda on matters needing more detailed treatment.

2. COURT CASES

Action has been taken in a number of cases of importance to the Upper
eolorado River Basin States. These cases include:

Oklahoma and Texas v. New Mexico, 501 U.S. _, 115 L.Ed.2d 207,
III S.Ct. _' This case arose out of a dispute over the interpretation
of various provisions of the eanadian River eompact, which was ratified
by New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas in 1951 and consented to by
Congress in 1952. In this opinion the eourt rules on the States'
exceptions to the Special Master's report. Oklahoma filed an exception
to the Master's recommendation in Part VI of his report that the eompact
Article N(b) limitation on "conservation storage" be interpreted to apply
only to the quantity of water New Mexico actually stores at Ute Reservoir
for conservation purposes, contending that the term should apply to the
physical capacity of the reservoirs below eonchas Dam. The eourt

29