WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.:. '. ~~~.i.l...".<,. ':'.,. "7' [Vol. '9: Page, ~e compact applies ~quitablc: division and vcr System. . . . To ins, and an apportion. ystan is made to each Ilcnts may be made. lIlce in understand_ t does not attempt rected solely to the wer Basin states as letail, this was but g of the waters of ~ southeastern part Arizona provided i in the mountain y arid land in the co=on interests .ower Basin states, of which interests Itely, contains one o Great care must leaning is not en- lIlded in the past ::Ourt has not yet :x:rpetuiry to the Upp~ ,ptive use of 7.500,000 Ie ,upply of auy rights sin is hereby given the ~ acre-feet per annum. iea ,hall hereafter rec- of the Colorado River ~ over and above the clJ surplus shan prove Iy borne by the Upper Division shall deliver OD. to that provided in ,er at Uc Ferry to be .ecutive years reCkoned :uccecding the ratifica- e States of the Lowei' Jplied to domestic. and THE COLORADO RIVER '5 l'v,cmbu ,#] I ak a comprehensive construction of the compact, leaving as per- un, er[ en th th I. f th tl st authoritative commentary on e text e ana YSlS 0 e h.ps le roo . th S '.1 Mas[er in Arizona v. Califo,:ma, whose report to e Supreme C~urt f'CC'( rtl . some detail the mearung of the compact. Several conclusIOns KU 0 lID . th " h " I d bj' the Master in construmg e compact merit attentlon ere. re.r Ie fin d' b I' (I) The apportionment is not con e to mam-stream water ut app leS , [er uses on both the main stream and the trIbutanes. 10 (~) The apportionment of arti~l~ III(a) and (b) of 7.5 millio~ a~re- fC'Ct [0 tilt Upper Basin and 8,5 millIOn acre:~eet to t!'e Lower Basm IS ~ r '[:Ition on use--a ceiling placed upon the benefiCial consumplJve use ~:'.[er from the Colorado River System-rather than a grant of specified qu.ntities of water. As between ~e .basins, the Upper can acquire no firm rights in uses in excess of 7.5 rm!hon acre-feet and the Lower, n~ fi~m rights in uses in eXcess of 8.5 mtlhon acre,feet.. The effe~t.of these hmna- lions is twofold. Article IIl(a) confines the claims of eXlstmg users (as of '9:.;!) in each basin to an aggregate of 7.5 million acre-feet; no vested rights i~ excess of that amount will be recognized as antedating the compact. Howevcr, the Lower B,.in is permitted to increase its uses to 8.5 million .cre,Cret under III (b) ; but this increase in use cannot qualify as a "present perfecled righl." Secondly, these limits on use inferentially define the word "surplus," a term of operative significance with respect both to a future 'pportionment and to the burden of supplying Mexico with water under ,"l' furnre treaty. . While it is not entirely clear, the apparent theory of the compact is that [he basins may develop their respective uses up to a maximum of 7.5 million .crd ect in the Upper Basin and 8.5 million acre-feet in the Lower Basin. AllY water not needed to supply such uses is "surplus." Pursuant to article lII(e) surplus is to be used first to supply Mexico if the United States should obligate itself by treaty to deliver Colorado River water to that country. Under articles /lI(f) and (g) the remaining surplus was to become avail- .hle for further division by compact after Octoher r, r9l>3, if and when eilher basin had utilized its full apportionment. (3) The ceiling on appropriations is measured in terms of "beneficial eumumptive use," a term not defined in the compact. As will be more fully .Ieveloped later, the two basins disagree over the meaning of this term, each advocating a method of measuring uses that favors itself. There seems lu be general agreement that the adjective, "beneficial," modifying "con- sumptive use," puts some limit, however vague, on the nature and manner or me. 71. The report of the Special Master, Simon H. Rifkind, in Arizona iI. CsJjfornia i'io d"tcd De. rrml'('f 5. 1960, and was reCeived by the Supreme Court on 1anu3ry 16. 1961.364 U.S. 940 (1961). Tnt Spn-ial Masrer's :;analrsis of Ulc compOlct 3ppear5 in Mt/5ft'1..s Rrporr 138--51.