<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 />
|