My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC04714
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
18000-18999
>
WSPC04714
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:40:39 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 4:47:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/17/1959
Author
Charles E Corker
Title
AZ Vs CA - Legal Documents 1958-1965 - The Issues in Arizona V California - A Paper Prepared for Presentation at CU Western Resources Conference
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />, <br /> <br />0018J4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />boundary. To each basin the Compact by Article III(a) appor- <br /> <br />, / <br />tioned in perpetuity the beneficial consumptive use=r of <br /> <br /> <br />7,500,000 acre-feet per annum of the waters of the Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />River system, defined by the Compact as the Colorado River and <br /> <br /> <br />its tributaries in the United states. The Article III(a) <br /> <br /> <br />apportionments, by the terms of that article, include water <br /> <br /> <br />for the supply of "any rights which may now exist." In addition, <br /> <br /> <br />Article III(b) of the Compact permitted the lower basin to <br /> <br />increase its use by an additional 1,000,000 acre-feet per annum. <br /> <br /> <br />The Compact in Article III(c) made provision, between basins, <br /> <br /> <br />for allocating the burden of any treaty that might later be <br /> <br /> <br />negotiated between the United States and Mexico. Article III(d) <br /> <br /> <br />of the Compact provided a guarantee of 75,000,000 acre-feet of <br /> <br /> <br />flow per ten year period at Lee Ferry. Among the states in <br /> <br /> <br />each basin the Compact left the available means of interstate <br /> <br />Y "Beneficial consumptive use" is a term left undefined <br />by the Compact. Its meaning was the subject of many weeks of <br />testimony in Arizona v. California, but at the close of trial <br />there was substantial agreement among the United States, <br />Arizona, and California that it means substantially what the <br />Court in Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 600 n.S (1945), <br />said "consumptive use" means: "the difference between water <br />diverted and water which returns to the stream after use for <br />irrigation." Under this definition it is apparent that <br />75,000,000 acre-feet of flow at Lee Ferry cannot supply. <br />75,000,000 acre-feet of beneficial consumptive use at downstream <br />points. There is a necessary deduction, prior to points of <br />diversion, of reservoir losses, channel losses, uncontrollable <br />spill, regulatory waste, etc., which is not beneficially used. <br />The United States and Nevada, however, still press a contention, <br />abandoned by Arizona, that reservoir losses are a "beneficial <br />consumptive use." <br /> <br />16. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.