BOARD01417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e operation for the current year." Perhaps more importantly from the viewpoint ofthe Upper Basin, the Act directs the Secretary, through the criteria, to store water in and release water from Lake Powell to preserve the ability of the Upper Basin to meet its delivery obligations under the Mexican Treaty and the Colorado River Compact, and to not impair the ability of the Upper Division States to develop their entitlements to water under the Compact." In 1970, the Secretary promulgated the Long Range Operating Criteria for the Colorado system reservoirs, pursuant to the 1968 Act. The Criteria deal with both upper and lower basin federal reservoirs.42 Thus, the body of law !mown as the "Law of the River" is not simply the intervention of federal jurisdiction. It is not simply an arbitrary division of water by the states. Rather, it was created by and has evolved through nearly 70 years of federal/state partnership. It is a complex and integrated water allocation scheme, developed sometimes out of harmony and at other times through conflict. Always there have been competing and balancing interests, but each time common principles have emerged: the preservation of the Upper Division States' ability to develop in the future, and the need for coordinated, regulated operation of the Colorado River System for the benefit of all the States. The United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California articulated the practical and logical need for coordinated operations in the Lower Basin. That statement has applicability to the operations of the River as a whole: All this vast, interlocking machinery--a dozen major works delivering water according to congressionally fixed priorities for home, agricultural, and industrial uses to people spread over thousands of square miles--could function efficiently only under unitary management, able to formulate and supervise a coordinated plan that could take account of the diverse, often conflicting interests of the people and communities of the Lower Basin States....Subjecting the Secretary to the varying, possibly inconsistent, commands of the different state legislatures could frustrate efficient operation of the project and thwart full realization of the benefits Congress intended this national project to bestow. 373 U.S. 546 at 589-590. "ld., Section 602(a) and (b). 41Id., Section 602(a). 42In broad outline, the Criteria require the Secretary to make several determinations each year, which determinations guide operations of system reservoirs for that year. For example, the Secretary determines 602(a) storage by Sept. 30 of each year (the amount of water needed in storage to allow the Upper Basin to fully utilize its compact share). The objective release from Lake Powell is to be a target of 8.23 maf (the release could be less if required by the Compact) if: Upper Basin Storage Reservoirs active storage forecast is less than the 602(a) storage determined by the Secretary for that year, or Lake Powell active storage forecast for that date is less than the Lake Mead active storage forecast for that date. More than this target amount could be released in order to "equalize" storage levels in Lakes Powell and Mead. In operating Lake Mead, the Secretary makes determinations based on a number of criteria. In a Nonnal Year, annual pumping and release from Lake Mead will be sufficient to satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in accordance with the Decree in Arizona v. California In a Surplus Year, the surplus is apportioned 50% to California, 46% to Arizona, and 4% to Nevada. In a Shortage Year, uses are restricted in accordance with the Decree and the 1968 Act.