C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER I 11 Article 24(d) authorized the International Boundary and Water Commission to settle all differences that may arise in the "interpretation or application of this Treaty, subject to the approval of the two Governments." This provision was relied upon by Ambassador Brownell after negotiating Minute No. 242 to explain why Senate approval was not sought in the final and permanent solution to the salinity problem. The Ambassador stated that the approval of the United States Government to the required authorizing legislation and Congressional appropriation of funds would satisfy the provisions of the Treaty. On April 18, 1945, the Senate ratified the Treaty with reservations. On November 27, 1945, President Truman proclaimed the Treaty in force as of November 8, 1945 (see Appendix 1 F.1 for text of Mexican Water Treaty) . G. The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact . While the Lower Basin States were unable to agrees upon an internal division of the Colorado River waters apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Upper Basin States were able to agree upon such a division in order that development could be initiated in those States. On October 11, 1948, the Upper Basin States entered into a Compact which followed the format and was subject to the provisions of the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Article III apportioned to Arizona the consumptive uoe of 50,000 acre -feet of water annually and to the following States the following percentages of the total quantity available for use each year by the Upper Basin under the Colorado River Compact and remaining after deduction of the use, not to exceed 50,000 acre -feet per annum, made in Arizona; Colorado 51.75 percent } New Mexico 11.25 percent Utah 23.00 percent 1 Wyoming 14.00 percent Article IV provides that in the event curtailment of use of water by the Upper Division States becomes nec- essary in order that the flow at Lee Ferry shall not be depleted below that required by Article III of the 1922 Compact, the extent of curtailment by each State shall be determined by the Commission (established at Arti- cle VIII) upon the application of stated principles. Article V established principles governing the application of the loss of water from storage in reservoirs. Article VI provided that the Commission shall determine the quantity of the consumptive use of water by the inflow - outflow method in terms of manmade depletions of the virgin flow at Lee Ferry, unless a different method of determination is adopted by unanimous action. This differs from the Lower Basin formula of "diversions less return flows" (see Senate Document No. 8, 81st Congress, 1st Session, January 31, 1949). Article VIII created an inter -State administrative agency known as the "Upper Colorado River Commission" and enumerated its powers. The Commission is composed of one member from each of the above -named four States and one Commissioner named by the President of the United States (see Appendix 1 G.1 for text of Upper Colorado River Basin Compact). H. The Colorado River Storage Project Act I ' Following the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948, Upper Basin Project reports were prepared in 1951 and 1952. However, it was not until April 11, 1956, that the Colorado River Storage Project Act became law, 70 Stat. 105. At the time of passage of the Act, Lower Basin development had proceeded more rapidly than had the Upper Basin. Laguna Dam, Hoover Dam, Davis Dam, Parker Dam; Imperial Dam, the Colorado River Aqueduct and the All- American Canal had been constructed in the Lower Basin. The purpose of the Colorado River Storage Project Act was to develop the water resources of the Upper Basin. It provided a comprehensive, multiple- purpose, Basin -wide water resource development plan.