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

Home Browse Search

h :. __- ..._.. - - 0 14 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Basin (The Court's holding was later modified by Section 301(b) of the C olorado Central Bain Project Act which also provided California with a 4.4 maf priority over diversions for The Court upheld the Master's finding tha�he Congressional statutory i apportionment of t mainstream water deci by equitable apportionment (since � was not applicable thereto) and that the States compromise settlement be included in the Decree. The Court followed the "Winters Right Doctrine" teded to reserve for them t the waters without which their lands vations along the Lower Colorado Rive , to irrigate all of water the practicably irrigable would have been g crea p g e on the United ive Reservation along the Lower Colorado River. This was about a - 905,496 acre -feet for 136,636 irrigable acres. . The Court disagreed with the Special Master's decision to determine the and a ruing the Colo- dispute xado River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave develops over title because of some future refusal by the Secretary to deliver water. for The Court agreed with the Special Master {that er Federal principle hments such as the Lake Mead nal Indian Reservations was equally applicable t� an Recreation Area, the Lake Havasu and Imperial National iil efug , a• d were Gila Nedonal Forest, and th:lt sufficient water was reserved for the purpose of any The United States cannot claim the entitlement to the t g ts wildlife i ref ges of the waters that would have been wasted but for salvage by the Government on Project Act's command that consumptive use from the mainstream be measured by diversions less returns to 9 _ the river. Finally, the Court agreed with the Special Master all uses of m #fie mainstream ataresithin a State are to be �„' charged against that State's apportionment and that included uses by The Special Master's Report is elaborated on in Chapter VIII and the Supreme Court Opinion in Chapter IX. J. The Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California $ An 'analysis of the Report of the Special Master in Arizona v. California, dated December errs 1960, and IX, f the Supreme Court's Opinion dated June 3, 1963, 373 U.S. 546, appears in . , 1 respectively. The Supreme Court Decree dated March avai9ab�e for6 release a determined by the Secretary of the In- 1 when there was sufficient mainstream wat ortioned terior, to satisfy 7.5 maf /yr of consumptive use in the three Lower Basin State . TD for us p in Nevada I 4.4 maf /yr thereof for use in California and 300,000 acre -feet annually was apportioned (Article II(B) (1)). ' The Decree defines "consumptive use" as "...diversions from the stream less such return flow thereto as is available for consumptive use in the Un'ntah� or I G�and of perfected ed nnghts I(A)). The Decree also defined "Perfected g of as a water right acquired in accordance with State law and exist ng of diversion 25, 1929 (the effective date ap the Boulder Canyon Project Act) , which has been exercised by • plied to a defined area of land or to defined municipal or industrial works and including rights reserved for J Federal establishments. . Article II(A) enjoins the United States and its officers from releasing water other than in accordance with the following order of priority: (1) For river regulation, mestic e es, including ig the satisfaction of present perfected rights; and (2) For irrigation and domestic u ill ' (3) For power. Provided, however, that the United States may release water for Mexico without regard to the aforesaid priorities. Note that the above order of priorities follows the provisions of Section 6 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act.