WSPC01380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

003110 Page 9 be transferred in such a way as to impair the right of even a junior holder to historical flows. In practice, the restrictions upon free transferability are usually imposing, although often not insurmountable. It is especially notable that informal arrangements have often been adopted among water users to overcome some of the barriers to more efficient water use which water laws have erected. Appropriation doctrine is implemented through "calls" on the river. When a water user finds that there is insufficient water in the stream to satisfy his right to divert, he can "callout" junior appropriators, i.e., force them to cease diverting to the extent necessary to permit him to divert his full entitlement, subject of course to hydrologic availability. i I ~j 2. Interstate water allocation institutions Federal legislation and judicial actions provide the ultimate recourse in deciding all interstate water disputes, as affirmed by Arizona v. California and Sporhase v. Nebraska. However, the federal government is always reluctant to ~ intervene until the states have clearly demonstrated their inability to resolve their disputes. When such intervention does occur, the courts have attempted, since Wyoming v. Colorado, to apply the principles of the water laws of the pertinent states (in this case the doctrine of prior appropriation), unless politically more workable arrangements have been devised, such as the principle of equitable division employed by the Colorado River Compact of 1922. The first of the institutional features which modifies or replaces prior appropriation doctrine in governing interstate water allocation in the Colorado River Basin is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. This compact apportions the flow of the river between the Upper Basin (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada). It applies