Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,001539 <br /> <br />::4?~' <br />'1'."...,.;" <br /> <br />$ <br /> <br />states for failure to appropriate.. all of the monies required""to <br />make possible the Compact allocations. Ther,efore, while the Uni,ted <br /> <br />states is not likely to be financially liable for undermining the <br /> <br />1922 Compact, Congress could find it equitable and indeed <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />compelling to permit the marketing of excess waters in the Colorado <br />River system for the benefit of the Tribe, parties whose water <br /> <br />depletions remain underdeveloped. <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />V. Had There Been No 1922 Compact, Upper Basin Marketinq Miqht Be <br /> <br />Law of the River. <br /> <br />It is my contention that if the Upper Basin states knew in <br /> <br />1922 that they would be depleting only 30% of their projected <br /> <br />depletions and that federal policies would have so changed to <br /> <br />substantially favor depletion in the Lower Basin and disfavor <br /> <br />depletion in the Upper Basin, they might have not have entered into <br /> <br />the Compact of 1922. That is, they would not have entered into an <br /> <br />agreement that assured the Lower Basin not only the full beneficial <br /> <br />use of its Compact allocation, but also assured the Lower Basin <br /> <br />that, over time, the Lower Basin would take for its own economic <br /> <br />good fortune a permanent Upper Basin surplus. To the contrary, as <br /> <br />a price for its support for Lower Basin development, the Upper <br /> <br />Basin would not have limited its economic benefits from the waters <br /> <br />'I, <br /> <br />of the Colorado River ( which it generates in its vast mountain <br />ranges) to only that portion of the waters actually committed'.t:o <br />irrigated agriculture and/or difficult and expensive transmountain <br /> <br />13 <br />