|
<br />..
<br />0;)2\)4;)
<br />
<br />48
<br />
<br />ASSEMBLY INTERIM COMMITTEE ON WATER
<br />
<br />TABLE X
<br />COMPARISON OF CALIFORNIA'S CONTENTION, MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION
<br />AND COURT OPINION (WITH PROTECTION OF EXISTING PROJECTS)
<br />UNDER MAXIMUM UPPER BASIN DEVELOPMENT
<br />California's llIaRter's reco1tt- Court's
<br />contention rnendations * op-inion t
<br />1. '1\)tal water to he allocated__ __ ___._ 8,000,000 6,000,000 G,OOO,OOO
<br />2. Available to CaliforniL___________ 4,650,000 3,[)00,000 4,400,000
<br />3. ~'otul California cont.racts __________ G,362,OOO 5,3G2,OOO 5,362,000
<br />4. California loss ____________________ (712,000) (1,862,000) (962,000):1:
<br />* Since maximum available is less than 7.5 million, master's shortage formula would
<br />be in effect.
<br />t Assuming 4.4 priority to California.
<br />.:j: The General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Metropolitan Water District has
<br />referred to this amount as "contract" or "paper" water, as contrasted to the
<br />"wet" water loss of 250,000 acre-feet which represents the difference between the
<br />total loss under California's contention compared with the loss under the court's
<br />opinion. Mr. Skinner discusses this concept in California State Senate Fact Find-
<br />ing Committee on Water Resources, Hearing, Transcript Sept. 4, 1964, at 146-148.
<br />
<br />In its decision, the court reduced California's certain rights to
<br />what the decree calls" present perfected rights," which are dcfined as
<br />rights to the quantity of watcr actually put to use before congressional
<br />authorization of Hoover Dam in 1929 plus the rights of Indian reser-
<br />vations. A determination of the extent of present perfected rights is
<br />being made at the present time, however, the estimates have been vari-
<br />ously given as anywhere from 3.1 to 3.6 million acre-feet for California.
<br />Of course, Arizona's would also be reduced to her "present perfected
<br />rights. "
<br />Before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, in dis-
<br />cnssing the court's deCI"ee, Northcutt Ely emphasized that the decree
<br />protects these present perfected rights, which are based upon diversions
<br />from the Colorado prior to enactment of the Boulder Canyon Project
<br />Act and construction of any major diversion works on the river. Thus,
<br />in any shortage formula the secretary might adopt the only amounts
<br />actually being dealt with are those above the amount of present per-
<br />fected rights. Practically speaking, this amount above the present per-
<br />fected rights is water that was made available to users as a direct result
<br />of the major storage projects and diversion works on the Colorado. Mr.
<br />Ely indicated that
<br />
<br />"Article II (B) (3) of the decree thus restricts the scope of the
<br />secretary's discretion to the marginal quantity that represents the
<br />difference between 7.5 million and the aggregate of present per-
<br />fected rights, that is to say, the in(Ternenfal 8fm'cd wafer which is
<br />the' amount remaining available' above present perfected rights,
<br />Present perfected rights, not yet determined, are probably about
<br />3.5 million in California, 600,000 in Arizona, a total of 4.1 million
<br />acre-feet of 'present preferred rights.' These were the quantities
<br />that were used before Hoover Dam was built. If 7.5 million is
<br />available altogether, the incremental stored water made available
<br />by construction of Hoover Dam thus represents about 3.4 million.
<br />Arizona's apportionment of 2.8 million thus includes about 600,000
<br />acre-feet of present perfected rights plus about 2.2 million of the
<br />incremental stored water, or, in the language of the decree, the
<br />'amount remaining available.' Arizona's 2.2 million of this is about
<br />
|