WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Vol. '9: Page I lepletions as a func- 3) consum pti ve Use of water in connec, Upper Basin were ~se at the site of use. ow-outflow method ltially measures the Id compares it with virgin /low values it ric loss figures. The ,nstitutes the state's Kl cannot, of course, ,III(d) of the 1922 ip between a state's at ue Ferry. Essen- '55 (from both evap- in Utah. Utah, of ;vithin her borders. I excess water at its teen the border and let depletion of the , urged to apply the Basin.'" The effect ses that occurred in the efforts of man. that the difference ptive use at sites of rted) had increased 0,000 acres without :over, when Kansas :d the net depletion plaint because Kan- I +.J... I . "f n.. ...,p e!lon or- '!llin~nt CJIIglnccr, also fur- >U>L THE COLORADO RIVER 3' Nov""'W 1966] ul for measuring consumptive use, the commissioners hesitated to insert III ~\'ision in the Upper Basin compact claiming it to be the proper defini- a. p~ of the term "beneficial consumptive use" in the 1922 compact. A pow- no th' th .. th U rful deterrent was e certamty at strong opposl!lon to e pper ~sin compact would thereby be aroused in the Lower Basin, leading pos- 'bl)' to Congress' withholding its consent to the compact. Since an Upper ~'Sin compact was the sjn~ qua non of Reclamation Bureau support for Upper Basin development, the external application of the net depletion formula had to be forgone.''' In litigation between the two basins it will undoubtedly be a principal contention of the upper group of states. iI " Ii n. Tht Provisions of th~ Upp~r Basin Compact of 1948 D~scrib~d and Analyz~d Article I declares that the Upper Basin compact was made pursuant to and in subordination of the 1922 compact.''' Its declared purposes are to di,'ide the Upper Basin's allocation of water from the Colorado River sys- tem among the states according to the principles of equitable apportion- ment and to establish each state's obligation respecting delivery of water at Lee Ferry. Article II incorporates some uncontroversial technical defini- tions contained in the 1922 compact and adds a definition of "virgin /low." The most important provision of the compact is article III, which ap- portions fixed percentages of the consumptive use of water legally available 10 the Upper Basin among Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming in perpetuity.". Arizona, which has only a small part of its area in the Upper Basin and contributes less than one per cent of the Colorado's /low, is given a mass allocation of 50,000 acre-feer per year. Arizona initially de- manded 140,000 acre-feet per year, or 1.81 per cent of the water being ap- portioned,"o although the Bureau of Reclamation had estimated her ulti- mate yearly consumptive use in the Upper Basin at a mere 49,200 acre- feet.''' When negotiations seemed to be blocked because the other states :asked for more water than was available, Arizona readily agreed to accept 50,000 acre-feet per year'" since she was principally interested in the Colo- rado in her capacity as a Lower Basin state.'" That interest accounts for article XVIII, which preserves her rights as a Lower Basin state under the II'. Wyoming suggested anothc=r r~son fOf opposing the formula: wbile the Upper Basin might hrn~[ from the "depletion of the virgin flow" formula by an additional ",,00,000 acre-feet, the Lower &.alln wuuld Ixndlt by an additional 2.15 million :acre-feet. :3 ~COkD. Meeting NO.7. at 58--59. ,118. For Ihe officiallut of the compact. se~ 63 Stat. 31 (19049). It is also reprinted in U.S. Ou T 01' IN"TEIl.I0Il., DOCUMENTS ON THE USE. AND CoHTIlOL OF nu WATEIl.S OF INTJ:;R5TAU AND '1lIlWAT10SAL STllEANS :1:18 (1956). 119. ~n. JII(a)(2). The pucC=Dtag~ are: Colorado, 51.75%; New Mexico, J1.25%. Utah. 23%; ud W)'omlng, 104%. uo. :2 RECO~D, Mc=eting NO.7. at 98---99. 121. CoLOIlAOO RIVER '51. 1:11. :3 hCORD, Mc=c=ting NO.7. a1109. u3. I i/., Meeting No. :3, al 5.