Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001540 i;J(i)' <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />diversions. Rather, I submit that over time the Upper Basin would <br />have extracted as the price for its support of Lower Basin <br />development, marketing of Upper Basin waters. As I show below, <br />such marketing while not common in 1. 922 ,has become a common <br />occurrence within .the Basin states with respect to intrastate <br />transactions. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Looking back seventy years, an argument can be made that in <br />fact. the Upper Basin states would be better off today were there no <br />Compact. Under the Compact, California and Arizona receive the <br />benefi t of any failed federal performance in the. upper Basin <br /> <br />states. <br /> <br />As a practical matter, these two prosperous states are <br /> <br />assured the opportunity to use of all unused Upper Basin <br /> <br />depletions. <br /> <br />That amount is now in excess of 2,000,000 million <br /> <br />acre-feet per year. If no Compact had been negotiated, the law of <br /> <br /> <br />equitable apportionment and evolving marketing principles would <br /> <br /> <br />have applied, in part, to the benefit of the Upper Basin states. <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado, wyoming and Utah, for example, would have arguably been <br /> <br /> <br />better off, because, over time, competition between Arizona, <br /> <br /> <br />California and Nevada for'ever more valuable Colorado River waters <br /> <br /> <br />could have resulted in interstate transfers of water to those <br /> <br /> <br />competing Lower Basin States from the respective Upper Basin <br /> <br /> <br />states. In the absence of a Compact, which appears not to have <br /> <br /> <br />envisioned such transfers, water marketing which has blossomed in <br /> <br /> <br />the Southwest for instate transfers may well have been utilized. <br /> <br />1. 4 <br />