PUB00046 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the Boulder Canyon Project Act however. the secre- tary of the Interior requested that the state prioritize its rights to Colorado River water among the major users. The California Seven-Party Agreement, signed in August 1931, established in broad catego- ries how much water each of the major entities in southern California could use (see page 21). Conflict between Arizona and California continued after Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal were completed. In the early 1930s. Arizona made three unsuccessful appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the states' differences. Arizona's water policies changed in the late 19308, when it became necessary for it to purchase power from Hoover Dam forthe first time. In 1944. Arizona ratified the compact and began seeking its own federal project to bring Colorado River water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas. In the Upper Basin, projects authorized for study in the Boulder Canyon Project Act were blocked until the tour states determined their individual rights. In 1948. these states entered into the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. The Compact apportioned percentages of the available river flow to the individual Upper Basin states and 50.000 acre-feet of the Upper Basin water supply to Arizona. The agreement also established the Upper Colorado River Commission to oversee the interests of the Upper Basin states. The first Upper Basin projects authorization bill to be approved by Congress passed in 1956 and is known as the Colorado River Storage Project Act. It authorized Glen Canyon Dam to be built just above Lee's Ferry. Ariz. - the compact dividing point - near the Arizona-Utah border. It also authorized the Central Utah Project (CUP) and a total at 11 projects in Wyoming. Colorado and New Mexico. Meanwhile. Arizona's bid for a federally built aqueduct to carry water to Phoenix and Tucson, first proposed in the late 1940s, stalled. Congress would not approve the Central Arizona Project (CAP) until the state's share of the Colorado River was determined. Consequently. Arizona sued California in 1951 to resolve the issue. In 1963. the Supreme Court (in a controversial decision) decided the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act empowered the secretary of the Interior to implement the Lower Basin apportionment of mainstem water and to determine how future shortages should be apportioned among the states. This controversial decree advanced for the first time the view that Congress had apportioned the Lower Colorado River and empowered the secretary to implement the apportionment by execut- ing water delivery contracts within the Lower Basin states. The court's decree gave Arizona control over its main tributary, the Gila River. which it had failed to obtain in the initial compact negotiations. It also cleared the way for the construction of Ihe CAP. authorized by Congress In 1968 and substantially completed in the early 1990s. The court's 1964 decree ullimately set California's annual Colorado River apportionment in normal years (years when 7.5 million acre- feet of water are available to the mainstem users in the Lower Basin) at 4.4 million acre-feet plus one-half of any surplus water - reducing the dependable water supply from 5.3 million acre-feet California earlier believed it had. Arizona's basic apportionment is 2.8 million acre.feet annually and 46 percent of any surplus. Nevada's basic apportionment is 300.000 acre-feet annually and 4 percent of any surplus. California's use has varied between 4.5 million acre- feel and 5.2 million acre-feet since 1985. relying on Arizona and Nevada's unused apportionment and beginning in 1996, on surplus determinations. Recent actions have been taken to reduce California's overuse of the river (see page 21). Throughout the years of negotiations over Colorado River water allocations and rights, the river's tributaries also were developed. In some cases, tributaries were developed more readily and with less controversy than the Colorado River itself. Some. times, the tributary projects were simply tacked onto larger Colorado River projects. For example. with the 1968 CAP legislation, Colorado gained authorization of five small water projects on tributary rivers; in New Mexico, the promise of a new dam; and in Utah, two water projects. In other situations, tributary projects have been authorized for years but have not been built because of political, environmental and. sometimes, economic pressures. Aulhorized in the late 1960s. the Animas. La Plata Project near Durango. Colo. has not been built. stymied by such issues as Indian waler rights, economic feasibility and environmental concerns (see page 22). Other authorized but unbuill projects include Fruitland Mesa and San Miguel in Colorado. The Central Utah Project, planned for completion in 2005. will take over 100,000 acre.feet of water out of Colorado River Basin streams in eastern Utah annually and transport it west for farm and city use. Herher! Hoon'r (seated) ami delegafcs fm11/ the seren basin s!ates at the signing oj the Colorado Ri,'cr Compact in Bishop'5 Lodge. Ne~I' Mexico, on Nm'el1lher 24, 1922. 9