Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ou2J4'J <br /> <br />ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA AND PACJTFTn ROTT'T'HWRBT W_A_TER PROBLEMS 43 <br /> <br />illustrates the water supply available to California and Arizona and <br />the amount available for new projects in Arizona, under California's <br />contention that the tributaries be included in the computation of the <br />states' entitlements. (l<"or the purposes of illustration throughout this <br />chapter a 6-milIion-acre-foot long-time Lower Basin supply (a shortage <br />situation) is used). <br />TABLE VIII <br />WATER AVAILABLE UNDER SITUATION INCLUDING TRIBUTARIES <br /> <br />(California's Contention) <br /> <br />ESTIMATED MAINSTREAM SUPPLY <br />(long-time dependable supply) __________________________________ 6,000,000 <br />ESTIMATED TRIBUTARY FLOW' _____________________________ 2,000,000 <br /> <br />Acre-feet <br />per year <br /> <br />Total to allocate _____________________________________________ 8,000,000 <br />California's Share: ' <br />Basic 4,400,000 acre-feet amount ___________~________~___________ 4,400,000 <br />One-half of surplus over 7,500,000 _______________________________ 250,000 <br /> <br />Total available to California _____________________________,,______ 4,650,000 <br />'l'OTAL CALIFORNIA USE (1963) <br />Maximum. con~racted .fd'r (consumptive use) --------------------"li 5,362,000 <br />Total Oal1form3 deficIt ---__________________________.____________ (712,000) <br /> <br />Arizonllf's Share: <br />Basic 2,800,000 acre-feet amount ________________________________ 2,800,000 <br />One-half of surplus over 7,500,000 _______________________________ 250,000 <br /> <br />Total available to Arizona ____________________________________ 3,050,000 <br />TOTAL ARIZONA USE (present projects) <br />Mainstream use < diversions less return flows) <br />(l\-Iaximum expected to be used by Year 2000 from existing projects, <br />not including Central Arizona Project) _____________________ 1,300,000 <br />Tributary use ------------_____________________________________ 1,800,000* <br /> <br />Total -- ---------- --_ ___ ____________ __ _____________________ 3,100,000 <br />Total Arizona deficit (without Central Arizona Project constructed)__ (50,000) <br />. Existing projects in Utah, Nevada and New Mexico require 151,000 acre-feet of <br />tributary flows. <br /> <br />It can be seen that, based upon an estimated annual mainstream sup- <br />ply of 6.0 milJjon acre-feet a year and including tributary waters in <br />the computation, California's existing needs as explessed by present <br />use ClYltld not be fully met on a long-term basis under conditions of <br />maximum Upper Basin development. Even if California had "won" <br />the lawsuit on this issue, reductions were inevitable. Upper Basin de- <br />velopment and declining supplies in the river made it inevitable that <br />California would be denied its full contract entitlement of 5,362,000 <br />acre-feet. Exclusion of tributaries virtually eliminates any future pos- <br />sibility of surplus supplies in the river. <br />It can be seen also that the needs of the Central Arizona Project, <br />requiring 1.2 million acre-feet annually, could not be met at all in this <br />situation. The kcy here is that the tributaries are in Arizona and not <br />in California and they are almost completely developed at present. <br />In excluding tbe tributaries the court's opinion noted, "Not only does <br />