My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPP00068
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPP00068
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:47:23 AM
Creation date
10/1/2006 2:03:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Basin-Colorado River Basin Legislation/Law-Compacts-Colorado River Compact
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/1/1976
Author
CWCB
Title
Colorado River Compact-Synopsis of Major Documents-Synopsis of Major Documents and Events Relating to the Colorado River
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />,) <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />~ <br />It") <br />.... <br />fN <br /> <br />At this time the State of California was already vigorously <br />pressing Congress for authorization of a federally financed <br />lower basin project on the Colorado River. As the result of <br />the Wyoming vs. Colorado decision, the upper basin states were <br />now openly hostile to the construction of storage or diversion <br />facilities on the lower river that would place that area in a <br />position to monopolize the waters of the river through prior <br />appropriation. It therefore did not appear possible that <br />Congress wQuld approve lower basin proj?cts without an'adequate <br />guarantee that the water resources of the upper basin would <br />have some protection. In such a climate, the Colorado River <br />Compact Commission, authorized by Congress the previous year, <br />began its deliberations in January of 1922. The Commission was <br />chaired by Herbert Hoover, representing the United States. <br /> <br />It soon became obvious that no divi'sion of water among the <br />respective seven states could ever be accomplished. Agreement <br />was then reached that the waters of the Colorado River and <br />its tributaries ~~ould be apportioned between the "Upper Basin" <br />(Colorado, Wyoming, and parts of New Mexico, Utah and Arizona), <br />and "Lower Basin" (California, Nevada and parts of Utah, New <br />Mexico, and Arizona). <br /> <br />However, the Commission then became deadlocked on the <br />question of how much water each basin was to receive. A handy <br />solution was provided by the Bureau of Reclamation, which had <br />made studies to determine the possible future water require~ <br />ments of each basin. The requirements of the Upper Basin were <br />figured at 6,500,000 acre-feet of water annually. The require- <br />ments of the Lower Basin from the main stem of the Colorado <br />River were estimated at 5,100,000 acre-feet. The total future <br />consumptive use of water from the Gila River in Arizona was <br />computed at 2,350,000 acre-feet. This latter sum, when added <br />to the 5,100,000 from the main stem of the Colorado, came to <br />7,450,000 acre-feet. This figure was rounded out at 7,500,000 <br />acre-feet. <br /> <br />The situation at this point was that the total Upper Basin <br />present and future requirements were computed at 6,500,000 <br />acre-feet of water annually, and the Lower Basin requirements, <br />including the Gila River, were computed at 7,500,000 acre-feet <br />annually. Since over 80% of the Colorado River flow originates <br />in the "Upper Division" states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and <br />Wyoming), the Upper Division commissioners were hardly in a <br />position to return home and inform their people that they had <br />bargained away over half of the Colorado River to the Lower <br />Basin. <br /> <br />At this point, a happy compromise almost occurred to the <br />effect that the Upper Basin should be allowed another million <br />acre-feet of water in order to bring its total allocation to <br />the same figure agreed on for the Lower Basin. The result would <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.