<br />2:-0. ::::_'3""'1~""':;;"-;:-,;",;';',,-,~_.",..."....',?......__:_~.1~' ....":l/.,.:;.,.-.\--... ".' ....: ......~l"-.,~.r..:,.. ., _;_.~,.. _. .,.~
<br />-"r~;'I""'"_ ...-..,~~"".,,:..iJ' '~1r.....O:~~....-:..s...L.~...#~~~~W~\4.6..v-.......;"...... -.' .
<br />; ..:t.."J '~" : ,,,,',)',,,tl._:'r::-tl~-'h~"'_-r.~" ~;..' .-+ ~~:~ r""~.' ..:.. -::: ~ ....u. ~.' "._h'......" 0'
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />,8
<br />
<br />STANFORD LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. '9: Page 1
<br />
<br />has contributed 72.18 per cent of the eventual discharge at Lee Ferry. That
<br />part of New Mexico which is in the Upper Basin (in the southeastern por-
<br />tion) must take its Colorado system water from the San Juan and its tribu-
<br />taries, which rise in Colorado. The state itself contributes only 1.29 per cent
<br />of the Lee Ferry discharge. Wyoming, in the northern portion of the basin,
<br />depends upon the Green River for its part of Colorado system water and
<br />contributes 10.94 per cent of the Lee Ferry discharge. Utah is both a carrier
<br />and a contributing state, for all major tributaries except the Gunnison join
<br />the Colorado within her borders. Tributaries rising in the northern portion
<br />of the state account for 14.63 per cent of the Lee Ferry discharge. The por-
<br />tion of Arizona which falls within the basin accounts for but o.g(; per cent
<br />of the discharge. These hydrological conditions, combined with the in-
<br />ability of the river to supply all of the water required for full development,
<br />account for the apportionments advocated by the several states. Each of the
<br />apportionments had some plausibility, and each had substantial advantage
<br />for its proponent.
<br />Colorado naturally wanted historic Lee Ferry contributions to be the
<br />basis of the apportionment. New Mexico, a substantial user but a small con-
<br />tributor, wanted present depletion and equal division of the unappropriated
<br />water to form the basis." Wyoming wanted ultimate depletion as projected
<br />by the 1945 Bureau of Reclamation report to form the basis.''' Utah did
<br />not suggest ultimate depletion as the standard, but did propose an appor-
<br />tionment based upon present and future uses.''' Application of any method
<br />was diflicult because of the lack of accurate data acceptable to all four states.
<br />The Bureau of Reclamation's 1946 report, T h~ Colorado Riv~r, proposed
<br />a master plan for development, but it was unacceptable as a basis for nego.
<br />tiation because it forecast ultimate Upper Basin depletions totaling some
<br />9,136,500 acre-feet yearly if all of the 134 protential projects were built and
<br />the proposed transbasin diversions were actually made. This amount of
<br />water was not legally available to the Upper Basin, and the report con,
<br />tained no basis for evaluating the projects by cost, benefits, and potential
<br />revenue.102
<br />
<br />99. "Streams originating in thl:: rnountam5 (of Colorado] are alm05t the only source of wat~
<br />for present and pote.ntia! deve1opmc:nts within the {San Juan] di.vision." COLORADO RIVEk 140.
<br />In 1945 New Mexico WoilS using only 68,000 acre-feet annually. Ultimate depletion was projected
<br />at 518,400 acre-fee-t per year. However, Colorado's ultimate depletion in the SOlO Juan WOls projected
<br />at 599,000. la. at 150.
<br />From 1917 [0 1943 the San JuOln ended an average of :J.I million acre.feet to the New Mexico
<br />border, but from J931 to 1940 it dropped to 1.745 million acre.feet.ld. at 140. It seems that laking
<br />into account her delivery obligation New Mexico stood to gain by an equal di\'ision of the conswnp-
<br />tive use of the San Juan.
<br />100. Wyoming is the uppermost state and has a small population; it was afraid more populous
<br />states would get the fint projects :lOd build up prior appropriOltive rights. 1 lUCOkD, Meeting NO.3,
<br />at 75. Wyoming in )945 was using 391,000 acre-feel, but uhim:ue depletion was projected at 967,000
<br />acre-feet per year. CoLORADO RrvER 124.
<br />)01. J RECORD, Meeting NO.3, at 92. Su also I id., Meeting NO.5, at 129-3:1 (statement of
<br />Utah emphasizing her potential developmem).
<br />102. U.S. DEP'T OF"INTEIUOk, TKE CoLORADO RIVER: INTERIM REPORT ON THE STATUS OF I~
<br />
<br />Ko\'ember 1966
<br />
<br />Early in tl
<br />of formulatin;
<br />jlineering ad,
<br />data to aid th,
<br />10" I'
<br />tionment. '
<br />water on ape.
<br />depiction a1l0\
<br />wgineering ac
<br />made it ditEcu
<br />The Camp
<br />ccntage alloca:
<br />considered in "
<br />Jotermination
<br />Iho prod uctior,
<br />.hon "forced" ,
<br />u'es were also
<br />Once it w<
<br />Ihe figures the:
<br />a uniform met
<br />ri\'cr SYSlcm ar.
<br />ficult element~
<br />that gave figm
<br />contributions,
<br />lossos. Compar
<br />lale e\'aporatio
<br />lines, the engi
<br />uacted man-IT
<br />lo>s~s by dedl
<br />latter were de, I
<br />formula is:
<br />
<br />dopletion at ,
<br />
<br />n..ATION"S AlITHORU
<br /><:.A... YO~ PkOJECT ^
<br />IUIM in respons,= to
<br />103. 1 RECORD,
<br />10<4. Ibid.
<br />105.1 id.,Mee-1
<br />106. Ibjd. The
<br />II,ht of th,= Stonge l
<br />107.1 iti., Mec
<br />rr-pm of historic .5[;
<br />If 10.
<br />loB. 1 id., Mer
<br />u..n "conuitute imp
<br />,"', . . . allocatC'd .
<br />109. SU:;t id., ~
<br />110. S~~, ~.,., 2
<br />
|