WSPC00070

• File Number: 8200.700
• Description: Colorado River-Colorado River Basin-Colorado River Basin General Publications
• State: CO
• Date: 7/1/1976
• Author: Felix Sparks
• Title: Colorado River Documents and Major Events-Sparks Synopsis-July 1976-Synopsis of Major Documents and Events Relating to the Colorado River
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.0\

to the Upper Basin states. There was some disagreement among
those states, however, as to how these revenues should be
alJportioned. One suggestion was that an Upper Basin fund be
created from which the Upper Basin states could draw revenues in
accordance with their needs. The idea of a common fund did not
appeal to Colorado and it insisted that the revenues be apportioned
on the basis of water allocations under the Upper Colorado River
Basin COIl!Pact. New Mexico, which has the smallest water allocation,
objected to this method of apportioning power revenues.

For awhile the dispute over the apporticmment of power reve-
nues threatened the unity of the Upper Basin states. Eventually
a compromise was reached by which revenues were specifically
apportioned to the respective states, but on a basis which differed
slightly from the water allocations. Colorado agreed to a revenue
reduction of 5.75 per cent, which went to increase New Hexico's
allocation, and Utah agreed to a reduction of 1.5 per cent which
went to Wyoming's allocation. The resulting allocation of power
revenues to the respective states was as follows (water allocations
shewn in parentheses):

46 per cent (51.75 per cent)
17 per cent (11.25 per cent)
21.5 per cent (23 per cent)
15.5 per cent (14 per cent)
"
In the early 1950's, the Upper Basin states began an intensive
effort to secure congressional authorization of the Colorado River
Storage Project Act. This effort was strenuously opposed by various
congressmen from southern California, but had some support by
congressmen from northern California. Support for the passage of
the legislation was also given by Arizona and Nevada. The act was
passed in 1956. The three major provisions of the act are as
follows:

State
State
State
State

of Colorado
of New ~xico
of Utah
of t-lyoming

J"

":1;

(1) It provided for the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam'
on the Colorado River in Arizona a few miles above Lee
Ferry, the Flaming Gorge Dam in Utah on the Green River,
the Navajo Dam in New Hexico on the San Juan River, and
the Curecanti Dams in Colorado on the Gunnison River.
The total combined storage capacity of these four major
projects is in excess of 30 million acre-feet.

(2) Authorized the construction of participating projects in
the Upper Basin, subject to a finding of feasibility.

(3) Zstablished the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund from
apportioned power revenues to assist in the repayment
of participaeing projects.

To date, about two billion dollars have been authorized for
expenditure to further the purposes of the Colorado River Storage
Project Act.

-11-

2373