Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />