My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:30:00 PM
Creation date
6/9/2010 1:57:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/3000
Title
Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
10 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS <br />2.8 maf /yr plus one -half of any surplus water unapportioned by the Compact, subject to the availability <br />thereof for use in Arizona under the Compact and Project Act. Nevada was accorded the right under Article <br />7(f) to contract for 1 /25th of any surplus water available in the Lower Basin. <br />The details of these contracts and of the Secretary's contracts with agencies and water users in Arizona and <br />Nevada may be found in Chapter II hereof. <br />F. The Mexican Water Treaty <br />The possibility of a future Treaty with Mexico concerning Colorado River waters was recognized in Article <br />III(c) of the Colorado River Compact of 1922. This provided that any right to the use of such waters accorded <br />Mexico shall be supplied first from surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specifiie and <br />P aragraphs I1I(a) and (b), and if insufficient, then the deficiency shall be borne equally by e pp <br />Lower Basins and whenever necessary the States of the Upper Division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to <br />supply one of deficiency us of 2 maf anonuallydwould dbe available. (Therespecctive obl igations a <br />of the Basins <br />at that time that p <br />under this provision is still subject to different interpretations.) <br />The d thatinoth n n shall be mentioned <br />d as a denia Bouder Canyon Project Act o <br />o recognition of any r ght , if an y, .in Mexico to <br />provided that no g <br />the use of waters of the Colorado River System. <br />In 1922 Mexico used 500,000 acre -feet of Colorado River waters annually. By 1935, when Hoover Dam <br />was finished, Mexico used 750,000 acre -feet annually. By 1944 that use had risen to 1.5 maf annually. Ef- <br />forts to negotiate an agreement with Mexico failed in 1930 when Mexico claimed 4.5 maf and the United <br />States offered 750,000 acre -feet. However, negotiations initiated in 1941 did result in the 1944 Treaty. That <br />Treaty linked the waters of the Rio Grande River (much of whose waters originate in Mexico but is used in the <br />United States) with the Colorado River waters (all of which originates in the United States) . Impetus to a <br />Treaty was provided by the scheduled organizational meeting of the United Nations and by the fact that Mex- <br />ico was a wartime ally of the United States. <br />ntatives from each of the seven Basin States) had proposed <br />The Committee of Fourteen (two represe <br />deliveries to Mexico of 800,000 acre -feet each year the releases from Lake Mead total 10 maf plus a percent- <br />nia <br />age change when Lake Mead releases were moretwo l ess other O <br />Basin States supported i Ca n if � o �der <br />and Nevada opposed the 1.5 maf adopted by the <br />to limit Mexico before her increasing uses invaded their share of Compact water. <br />Article 10 of the Treaty guarantees to Mexico a minimum quantity of 1.5 maf of Colorado River water an- <br />nually, to be delivered in accordance with schedules furnished in advance by Mexico. The need for the <br />schedules was to require Mexico to take minimum flows which comprised leakage from Imperial Dam and <br />return flows below Imperial Dam which could not be controlled in any event. If there is a surplus, as deter- <br />mined by the United States, an additional 200,000 acre -feet may be provided, but Mexico acquires no rights <br />to more than 1.5 maf. <br />Mexican deliveries will be reduced in the same proportion as con- <br />In the event of an extraordinary drought, <br />sumptive uses in the United States are reduced. Even in the drought years of 1976 - this provision was not <br />utilized nor is it settled whether water in storage in United States reservoirs may be protected or must be <br />released to satisfy the Treaty obligation. <br />2 The question of the quality of the water has been a source of controversy. Article 10 refers to "waters of the <br />r Colorado River, from any and all sources..." Article 11 states that the waters to be delivered shall be made up <br />of the waters of the river, "whatever their origin..." The United States has construed the Treaty to mean that <br />Mexico can be given waters of any'quality; i.e., return flow or seepage, whether usable or not. The Mexican <br />view is that the water has to be usable and of a quality equal to that delivered to the United States users. The <br />Mexican salinity problems are covered in O. of this Chapter I and in Chapter VI hereof. <br />Mexico was required by Article 12 to construct a diversion structure below the upper boundary line, which <br />it did by building Morelos Dam, and protective works to prevent damage to United States lands. The United <br />States was to build a regulating dam which it did by constructing Davis Dam. <br />Article 13 dealt with flood control plans. Article 15 contained schedules of deliveries. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.