My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00046
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00046
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 10:11:26 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:09:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2001
Title
Layprson's Guide to the Colorado River
CWCB Section
Interstate & Federal
Author
California Water Education Foundation
Description
Layprson's Guide to the Colorado River
Publications - Doc Type
Photos
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
<br />TheU <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />er Basin <br /> <br />The Colorado River's Upper Basin is the source ot <br />most of the river's water. The less developed Upper <br />Basin has had fewer internal "turf" contlicts than the <br />Lower Basin. The Upper Colorado River Basin Com- <br />pact has allowed river management decisions among <br />four states - Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New <br />Mexico - to remain more independent of the Bureau. <br />All major dams in the upper Colorado River, how- <br />ever, were built by the federal government and are <br />under federal management. <br /> <br />Under the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Basin <br />is committed to deliver 75 million acre. feet to the <br />Lower Basin every 1 a-year period, an average of <br />7.5 million acre-feet a year. In addition, if surplus <br />water is not available, the Upper Basin must deliver <br />at Lee's Ferry one-half ot any deficiency in satisfy- <br />ing tne delivery of water to the Republic of Mexico. <br />After the Lower Basin states and Mexico have <br />received their respective apportionments. the Upper <br />BaSin states retain the remaining water supply. The <br />Upper Basin may not "unreasonably" withhold water <br />the Lower Basin needs for current beneficial uses. <br /> <br />The 1948 Upper Basin Compact set an annual <br />50.000 acre-feet apportionment for Arizona with the <br />remaining water divided: 51.75 percent to Colorado <br />(approximately 3.9 million acre-feet), 23 percent to <br />Utah (approximately 1.7 million acre-feet). 14 percent <br />to Wyoming (approximately 1 million acre-feet) and <br />11.25 percent to New Mexico (approximately <br />838.000 acre-feet). The agreement used percent- <br />ages because signers were uncertain about remain- <br />ing water once the Upper Basin fulfilled its obligation <br />to the Lower Basin states. The agreement also <br />created the Upper Colorado River Commission. an <br />interstate agency to administer the compact. <br /> <br />Once the Upper Basin Compact was signed, federal <br />projects authorized by the 1956 Colorado River <br />Storage Project Act began. including a major reser- <br />voir at Glen Canyon in Arizona which created Lake <br />Powell. Power (and money) generated trom the dam <br />provided the resources to construct other projects <br />in the 1960s and beyond. including the authoriza- <br />tion of CUP and dams on three tributaries: Flaming <br />Gorge and Fontanelle on the Green River in <br />Wyoming. Navajo on the San Juan River in New <br />Mexico and the Currecanti (now Aspinall) Unit <br />(composed of Blue Mesa. Morrow Point and Crystal <br />dams and power plants) on the Gunnison River in <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />Additional projects were approved in 1968 as part <br />of the Colorado River Storage Project Act including <br />Animas.La Plata. San Miguel, Dallas Creek and <br /> <br />West Divide Projects in Colorado and the Uintah <br />Unit of CUP and the Dixie Project in Utah. Only <br />three (some units of CUP. the Dallas Creek Project <br />and the Dolores Project) of these projects have <br />been built. <br /> <br />Upper Basin residents have grown increasingly <br />concerned that uses in the Lower Basin states, and <br />California in particular, will be in excess of their 1922 <br />Compact apportionments and will prevent the Upper <br />Basin's future water develop- <br />ment. In 1997. the Upper <br />Basin used approximately <br />4.2 million acre-feel of its <br />apportionment. The Upper <br />Basin yield is expected to be <br />no less than 6 million acre- <br />feet annually after meeting the <br />1922 Compact's water deliv- <br />ery requirements to the Lower <br />Basin. (By quantifying the <br />Upper Basin's total develop. <br />ment at 6 million acre.feet. the <br />amount of water apportioned <br />to each state is less than what <br />was apportioned under the <br />1922 Compact. For example. <br />Wyoming should receive 14 <br />percent - about 1 million <br />acre-feet - of the 7.5 million <br />acre-feet apportioned to the <br />Upper Basin. But if the Upper <br />Basin can, on average, depend on receiving 6 million <br />acre-feet annually as its total apportionment. <br />Wyoming could receive about 840,000 acre.feet.) <br /> <br />~ <br />-.~ <br />.~g-~..:: -::~.-z; - <br />i.- <br /> <br />The Upper Basin estimates it will be using 92 percent <br />(5.5 million acre.feet) of the 6 million acre-feel by <br />the year 2030. adding to concerns over the rising <br />demands for more water in the Lower Basin, prima- <br />rily from California. Some would say the Upper <br />Basin's caution is justified. For the first time in 1996 <br />and again in 1997, the Lower Basin states exceeded <br />their basic apportionment of 7.5 million acre-feet. <br />Given the demands for more water in the Lower <br />Basin and the relatively slow pace of development <br />in the Upper Basin. proposals have been made for <br />interbasin (trom Upper Basin to the Lower Basin) <br />water marketing on a permanent basis and water <br />leasing on a long.term basis. Some observers <br />question whether the Upper Basin will ever put its <br />remaining Compact-apportioned water supply to use. <br />The concept of interbasin water marketing (leasing <br />unused water downstream for future use) has not <br />received much Upper Basin support. When Utah <br />proposed leasing its unused apportionment to <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Glen Ca"ymz Dam in <br />Ari;.ona holds back ulkt! <br />PO\l"ell. capable of "\"wring <br />27 millioll Gen'-feel. <br /> <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.