WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Vol. '9: Page r nore observations may impose limits On the ;rants of title to water , Libits the Upper Basin )Clow an aggregate of rc years, measured "in r with the regulating er Dam (Lake Mead) iJable at Lee Ferry an r in the main stream- lellosses between Lee I) establishes a mini- ;in from withholding lestic and agricultural such excess water, it .. is defined in article the Lower Basin can- generation, and the 'n Lower Basin needs e basins over the gen- [d)'s 75-million-acre- 'se because the Upper 'mand water for such se of water for power provides a preference c use and establishes mplate the execution 'ge of the burden of ~cluded under which 'r year. It has already 1 first from any "sur- he two basins to bear mine. Read literally, First, the article as- 1 and will be dimin- t is then determined .feet of ~onsumptive co. If, however, the I'O\'ember 19661 THE COLORADO RiVER '7 supply exactly eq~als, or is less than 16 millio~ acrc.feet, there is t1~e? .. .leficieney which IS to be shared equally. Thus, if the supply IS '5 mllhon aere-feet and if the Upper Basin is in fact using only 3 million acre-feet, but the Lower Basin is consuming its full apportionment of 8.5 million acre- feet, the Lower Basin would have to cut back in order to supply Mexico, under this literal reading of III (c). A second question relates 10 the right of the Upper Basin to satisfy JI/(c) over a ten-year period. Since article III(d) is expressed as a ten-year requirement of 75 million acre-feet, arguably the Upper Basin has satisfied its JI/(c) obligation if it has supplied an additional 7.5 million in the pre- ceding ten,year period (750,000 being one-half of the 1.5 million owed an- nually to Mexico). The contrary argument is that artiele IlI(c) operates on a year-to.year basis and that the Upper Basin therefore gets no credit for any water in excess of that 75 million contributed in the previous ten- }'ear period. Cutting across this analysis are the provisions of article III(e), which may require the Upper Basin to deliver from storage that amount of water necessary to satisfy Lower Basin needs if the Upper Basin cannot use the water for agriculrural and domestic purposes. Thus, article III (c) could require release of water to Mexico by the Lower Basin, but article III(e) could require the release of replacement water to the Lower Basin for agri- cultural and domestic use. Finally, there is the question of the delivery point of the Upper Basin's share of the deficiency. Is the Upper Basin's obligation satisfied by delivery of one-half the defiCIency at Lee Ferry or is the Upper Basin required to deliver enough water at Lee Ferry to satisfy one-half the obligation at the Mexican border? The difference is substantial because of heavy channel and reservoir evaporation losses between Lee Ferry and the border. 2. Summary and conclusions. The Colorado River Compact recognizes and applies the doctrine of equitable apportionment in resolving a controversy over the use of the waters of a successive river-that is, a river that flows through two or more states but does not necessarily form their boundary. In conception, the com- p.act ?as some notewor~y merits. The agreement recognizes that upper npanans and lower Tlpanans may develop at different rates and guarantees a sup~ly to both riparians by limiting the lower riparian's ability to build up claIms by th~ ~xPa:'sio!, of uses. It permits one state to make temporary USe o! water oTlguJatmg m a less fully developed state, but provides that uses m excess of the apportionment are subject to termination when the laller state needs the water. It also recognizes lhat a settlement between two