BOARD00226 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This to us is not in compliance with the congressional act. There is nothing in the congressional act which states that the Upper Basin must deliver 6~ million acre-feet at Lee Ferry under any circumstances. As a matter of I fact, the congressional act is clearly to the contrary. The act says that if Lake Powell is below the capacity of Lake Mead and we are making our 75 million acre-feet obligation, -. plus the Mexican Treaty (whatever that may be), then Lake Powell should be brought up to the level of Lake Mead. We have the absurd position through the proposed criteria that if Lake Powell is empty and Lake Mead is full, 6~ million acre- feet of water would be released at Lee Ferry. This position is intolerable to the Upper Basin states and in clear and direct violation of the act of Congress. We have a serious objection to that part of the proposed criteria. Gover- nor Love voiced a considerable objection to it at the Commission meeting last week. We have recommended to the Secretary that that particular section be amended to conform with the law. We object to the figure '6~ million'. That figure was arrived at by adding 7~ million, or 75 million in every consecutive ten-year period, plus half of the Mexican Treaty of 750,000 acre-feet. In other words, the Department of the Interior assumes that the Upper Basin has to deliver 750,000 acre-feet of water at Lee Ferry each year as half of the Mexican burden. This, again, is in direct violation of the Colorado River Com- pact. The Colorado River Compact states that if there is a deficiency at the international boundary, then the Upper Basin and Lower Basin shall share that deficiency equally. There I~. . has never been a deficiency at the international boundary. Why at this time should the Upper Basin be charged with delivering 750,000 acre- feet to satisfy a non-existent deficiency? It makes no sense at all. In clear violation of the compact, the