WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

32 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. '9: P2ge , November J 966] .,,'aICf equal to its, put of such an ov, Article III of the C drawn (or slales ho is still a deficiency) 10 contribute a port, waler use in the U r curtailmenl concep' an annual delivery' 10 fluw by curtailin "~I' . '" ", 'g:luon. Article V deals lIvra!;e units such a nq.~uti3tions the su, Upper Basin's deli, I~ is joint and se' be compelled to m' lhc delivery obliga!: I -in other words, to , a. aJ:ainst another i 1l1rrc is, ho\\'cvcr, otalc' cxcept in tim anick 1\'. As artic' lil'crie, is "for the, "I,i()J1." Article V also pI ni'ling at the time II" U>r of ule state, arc charl:cd to Ulcn lIew facility. If dIe f rncfl'uir losS(:s at(: ( 1U1II1'1il'e use to tot" u"J I<> supply wat, "'1..- .1 I...tT FC'fr)' and J ~'"-'. It,. Art.I\'(b). I \.. A proVLMl in the- ... d.tt' Uw 19'.1 compact ., wt..Lt VIII 01 the 19'2 ... ..,rrrnac'nl. II hu ,ineC' ....... luw ", '9:19. t.hr I ........... Ardutu .... c..lifo '1'\ In a RaulI.u. M ....~t.noJ.hr'C'u.'lilll I.' ,"'..Wmin,Nt. ')1, 114J. Colorado River Compact. This article is intended to allow her to contest any construction that the Upper Basin placed upon essential terms of the 1922 compact (for example, "beneficial consumptive use") should she be- lieve herself to be prejudiced thereby.'" The Upper Basin compact's apportionment of water "in perpetuity" was approved with little discussion.'" Since the states were contemplating long-term development and had enough potential projects to exhaust their share of the river, an apportionment in perpetuity was thought to be neces, sary to safeguard their projected invesunents.'" The final percentage allocations were the result of compromises. Initial demands of the four states amounted to 117 per cent of the available sup. ply.'" The chairman of the commission called on the states to justify their demands-a request not lightly ignored because the chairman was Harry Bashore, former Commissioner of Reclamation and representative of the federal government, which would finance the water resource development. After private negotiations among the parties, modified demands were presented to Bashore, who formulated a compromise that was readily accepted.'" Article III also reflects the Upper Basin's determination to preserve its rights in any future apportionment of "surplus" under article III(f) of the 1922 compact by declaring that the percentage allocations apply only to the 7.5 million acre-feet apportioned by article III (a) of the 1922 agreement.... Article IV is also extremely important because it provides the formula and mechanism for curtailing consumption if a drought should make it impossible for the Upper Basin to meet its Lee Ferry delivery obligation and still maintain all existing uses. The Upper Colorado River Commis- sion is charged with determining the extent of the necessary curtailment- a curtailment which negotiators thought would be required only if the storage reservoirs were empty.'" Curtailment is to be based upon the extent of use during a designated period prior to the drought and not upon the percentage allocations.... There are two curtailment formulae: (I) if a state or states have been using more than their allotted share of water for ten years preceding the time of curtailment,'" they will be required 10 contribute to Lee Ferry 124. Ibid. (position stataneot of Arizona). 115.2;d.,MeetingNo.6,at8. 126. Ibid. 127. :zid.,Meer.ingNo.,.atJ:23. 128. 2 id., Meeting NO.7. at 123-29. [29. Commissioner Stone of Color..do dttlared th.at it would be bad policy to agree to make the Upper Basin ~rcenlage binding OD any surplus alloated 10 the Upper Basin Mee not all states signa- tory to the 19:22 compact were pr~nt. :2 ;d., M~ting No.6, at 106--0,. 130. :1 ;d., Meeting NO.7. at ,6. 131. Ihit/. 132. The commission accepted the U!',t of a ten-year n~age as a basis for curtailment brc2U5C the chairman of the cngincaing commillec argued it would be "fair" to calculate both delivery abli.