WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r~t~~;~~~,. 34 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. '9: Page I state is to bear the reservoir losses. If two or more states use water from the reservoir, their proportionate shares of the losses are to be determined by the commission. This provision for apportionment of reservoir losses (which are of some magnitude) represents a substantial advance over both the 1922 compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and is a useful pro. vision for draftsmen to keep in mind. Articles VI and VIII are the chief sources of the Upper Colorado River Commission's authority. The commission, composed of one representative from each of the four Upper Basin states and one from the federal govern- ment, is empowered to make findings regarding: (I) "the quantity of water of the Upper Colorado River system used each year in the Upper Colorado River Basin and in each state thereof";'" (2) "the quantity of water deliveries at Lee Ferry during each water year";'" (3) "the necessity for and the extent of the curtailment of use" in case of drought;'" and (4) "the quantity of reservoir losses and . . . the share thereof chargeable."'" As we have already noted, under article VI the quantity of consumptive use is to be determined by the inflow-outflow method. The negotiators clearly intended to limit the commission's powers. Article VIII (g) provides that its findings of fact shall be prima facie rather than conclmive evidence before any agency or tribunal. The negotiators also expressly rejected a provision requiring the appointment of an Upper Basin watermaster with powers to compel delivery'" and declined to give the commission authority to determine what projects should be curtailed in the event of a water shortage, leaving that choice to the individual states.'" Moreover, the commission's authority is also circumscribed by the para- mount power of the federal government. When the Secretary of the In, terior recently decided to transfer water from Lake Powell in the Upper Basin to Lake Mead in the Lower Basin, the commission charged that his action was a breach of a "contract" with the Upper Basin states, but he adhered to his decision.'" The commission's early activities give little indi- cation of how it will exercise its power in the event of a scarcity. Its first years were spent pressing for passage of the Colorado River Storage Project Act,'" and the commission's engineering committee has been engaged in 138. Art. VIn(d)(6). '39. Art. VIlI(d)(7). ,,0. An. VIlI(d)(8). ".. An. VtII(d)(9). 14.2. :3. RECORD, Meeting No.6. at 37. 143. SU.2 it/.. Meeting No.6. at 50-51. 1401. Tune, April.14. ]964. at 23. The Dt:partmc=nt of Intt::rior (;avors a construction which contemplate! Up~r Basin .storage, bUI has indicated it will follow its own critaiOl for operation of the dam. s~~ Clyde, Conflicts B~tIPUfl the UPP" Dna Low" Basins on the Colorado Rille"r. in RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT: FI\OSTIERS l'O~ Ruu.aCH 113. 1J9-.10 (Wcstun R~Ollrces Conference 1960). 14.5. Su, r.g., 4 UPPER CoLO. Rrv:u CoMM'N ANN. REP. 5 (1953). No\'tJl1bc:r 1966] detailed studies pCl sumptive use. While the Upp' at state lines for fu: negotiated separate on certain interstat, ex:unple, between ( were recognized by ,'ious agreements e: I negotiated what we] cach been allotted a ments among them' uke its apportioned XIV of tlle compacl UlC compact, future portioned streams I negotiation. ' Article XIV, wh merits special consi, u.o San Juan is tre< which the San Juan naturally concerned outside the San J uar, would not be done I ri\'Of for its develop' the compact absent r agreed to allow New tho San Juan and it: ulat any curtailment 10 be based on a pen supply as determine, Article XV provi Ibsin shall be prefe Lower Basin's claim UI( major storage w be)'ond its influence Article XV also I water which may be uins that Glen Cany' 146. 2 !lacoRD, MectinE ..,. 2 ',." Meeting No. '41. 2.1/.. Meeting No.