WSP00256

• File Number: 8210.140.20
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Basin States Forum - California
• State: CA
• Basin: Western Slope
• Date: 6/1/1969
• Author: Myron B Holburt
• Title: Californias Stake in the Colorado River
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

i921.

Waler Righls Under Slate Law
Public agencies in California hold appropriative
rights, valid in srate law, for the beneficial consump-
tive use of water from rhe Colorado River, some initi-
ated as ear\v as 1877, The total entitlement under such
rights vested prior to June 25, 1929, the effective date
of the Colorado Ri\'er Compact and the Boulder Can-
yon Project Act, was greatly in excess of thc 5,362,000
acre-feet per annum set forth in the California Water
deli\.erv contracts with the Secretary of the Interior.
\Vorks. now in operation are of sufficient aggregate
capacity to put that quamity and more to beneficial
consumptive use in the stolte.

Hoover Dam Power Contracts
In 1930 the Secretar\' executed a contract under
which the Cit\, of Los Angeles Department of 'Vater
and Power an'd the Southern California Edison Com-
pany hec.lme lessees of the Hoover powerplant, obli-
gated to generate energy at cost to other allortees, of
which The Metropolitan \Vater Disrrict of Southern
C;})ifornia was the major one, under a separate energy
purchase contract with the Secretary. Ultim:nely
other California enciries and the states of Arizona and
Nevada contracted for the purchase of energy, The
general effect of the 1930 contracts. however, was to
obligate the California contractors for 100 percent of
the firm energy. In essence, they undenvrote the en-
tire cost, since the Arizona and Ne\'ada arrangements
were on a "tnke or relinquish" basis. (See Appendix 1)
Arizona and 1\Tevada have sjncc contracted for their
shnres, and no\\. the great plant is a tremendolls boon
to the entire Southwest.

The California contracts were modified in 1940 to
adjust the interest rate and to provide for payments
of $300,000 a vear each to Arizona and Neyada in lieu
of taxes and o'f $500,000 a vear into a Colorado River
Development Fund, in addition to repayment of direct
COsts.

Waler DelivenJ COlltracts
In compliance with the terms of the Boulder Can-
yon Project Act, California agencies in the period 1930
to 1934 executed contracts with the Secretarv of the
Interior for storage and deliven" of wat~r from
Hoover Dam Reservoir (Lake M';ad) , They call for
a total net diversion of not less than 5,362:000 acre-
feet of water a year, a quantity thought to be well
within the bounds of the Limitation Act, although
the contracts are subject to the availability of water
under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder
Canyon Project Act. Diversion works .md converancc
facilities of sufficient capacity to utilize the entire
amount and more are constructed and in operation.

Seven-Party Agreement
Prior to execution of the water contracts and in
response to a request by the Secretary, the California

entities in 1931 agreed among themselves as to their
relative priorities of right to Colorado River water.
This seven-party priority agreement was made a part
of each water delivery contract, The first three pri-
orities go to the agticulrural agencies, leaving The
Metropolitan \Vater District relativelv low on the
scale, except for certain rights to wate; in Lake Mead
a.ccumulated to its credit by reason of reduced diver-
sIOns.

Total of the first three is 3,850,000 acre-feet a year,
leaving Metropolitan onl,\' 550,000 acre-feet of the
7,500,000 apportioned to the Lower Basin b\' the Com-
pact, since California by its Limitation Act is held to
only 4,400,000 acre-feet of that basic quantity, The
remaining 662,000 acre-feet a year of 1\1erropolitan's
right, and any additional water for the agricultural
agencies, must come from the "excess or surplus" re-
ferred to in the Project Act and Limitation Act, (See
Appendix 2)

At the time the seven-parry agreement was reached
in 193 I, it was generally believed that there would be
ample "excess or surplus" water beyond the 4.4 million
acre-feet basic quantity to pro~ide the remaining
6621000 acre-feet of Metropolitan's contract amount.
plus additional water for the agricultural agencie"

Mexican Water Treaty
For its last 7 5 miles, Colorado River flows through
Mexico, and even before 1922 a considerable area of
land south of the border was irrigated from the stream,
J\1exicnn officials watched with some apprehension
the rapid rise in water use in the United States, and
ahollt 1940 began negotiations with this country as to
an international division of the Water.

In 1945 the Mexican \Vater Treaty was ratified,
over the opposition of California and Nevada, guaran-
teeing Mcxico 1,500,000 acre-feet a year of Colorado
River water, twice as much as was anticipated in the
United States prior to the negotiations, Because the
Treaty guarantee is a first lien on the river, it creates
a legal Water shortage in the United States to be added
to the natural shortage that has been developing since
1930 by reason of a drop in the natural flow of the
Colorado,

A primary function of Davis Dam, completed on
the Colotado by the United States in 1950, is to re-
regulate the flows released from Hoover Dam into
the delivery schedules set up under the rernlS of the
Treaty.

Upper Colorado River Basi.. Compact
California is, of course, not signatory, but the Upper
Colorado River Basin Compact is of interest because
of the method used in it to divide water among the
signatory srJ.tes, because of some of its terms and defi-
nitions and because it is a part of the Law of the

14