Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />001496 <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />needed, (2) are within each state's equitable but as yet unestablished <br />share of water, (3) are desired by local beneficiaries after their repay- <br />ment obligations are known, and (4) entail construction costs which may <br />be finanoed by Congressional appropriations or ctherwise. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Experience teaches that the necessary investigational program will <br />require many years to complete; that the construction of some projeots <br />may be oarried on while investigations of others are underway; that neither <br />the needs of future generations or the diotates of financail policies can <br />be anticipated too far in advance. Hence the view of Colorado is that <br />any plan for the comprehensive and ultimate development of the Colorado <br />River Basin, which might now be formulated by the Department of Interior, <br />will be modified from time to time. further, Colorado points out that the <br />Report itself reoognizes that a comprehensive plan is contingent in a <br />major way upon the ultimate determination of the apportionment of water <br />to the individual states. It can be reasonably expected that upon the <br />determination of such allocations, each affected state will exert an im- <br />portant influence in shaping the development within its borders and within <br />its share of Colorado River water, consistent with common operational <br />features on the river and the provisions of the Colorado River Compact. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />,'t, <br /> <br />8, Joint action of all eeven states is n~~ necessary to an allo- <br />cation of water. The Report recommends, "that the states of the Colorado <br />River Basin determine their respective ri~hts to deplete the flow of the <br />Colorado River consistent with the Colorado River Compact." This proposal <br />implies that all controversies concerning the waters of the Colorado River <br />can and should be resolved promptly by the collective action of all seven <br />affected states. As previously pointed out, the first necessary step <br />toward oarrying out this proposal involves the apportionments heretofore <br />made by the Colorado River Compact to the Upper Basin and to the Lower <br />Basin, recognizing that further apportionments between the two basins, <br />over and above those heretofore made, oannot be undertaken under the Com- <br />pact until after 1963, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado reoognizes the necessity and desirability of the states <br />of the Colorado River Basin determining their respective rights to deplete <br />the flow of the Colorado River consistent with the Colorado River Compact. <br />That all of the states of the Upper Basin accept this reoommendation of <br />the Report and assume that responsibility is evidenced by the fact that <br />sinoe the Report was issued these states have initiated compact negoti- <br />ations.for two principal purposes, n~~ely, (1) to determine relative rights <br />of the respeotive states of the Upper Basin in the beneficial consumptive <br />use of the 7.500,000 aore feet of water per annum heretofore apportioned <br />in perpetuity from the Colorado River to the Upper Basin by Article III <br />(a) of the Colorado River Compact; and (2) to determine the relative ob- <br />ligations of the states of the Upper Division imposed by Article III (d) <br />of the Colorado River Compact, not to cause the flow of the Colorado River <br />at Lee Ferry tc be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre feet for <br />