WSPC04582 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00lG1l'J . . to the Upper Basin states. There was some disagreement among those states, however, as to how these revenues should be apportioned. 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 cOlIllIlon 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 Compact. New Mexico, which has the smallest water allocation, objected to this method of apportioning power revenues. For awhile the dispute over the apportionment 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 Mexico'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 shown in parentheses): State of Colorado State of New ~exico State of Utah State of Wyoming 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: l (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 l-lexico 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) Established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund from apportioned power revenues to assist in the repayment of participat~ng projects. To date, about two billion dollars have been authorized for expenditure to further the purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project Act. -11-