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

i ("0",,-,
..;~/.:.

River. Although the interpretations of some terms and
provisions adopted by the Upper Basin negotiators are
contrary to views held in California, the negotiators
expressly denied that the Upper Basin Compact alters,
amends, modi ties or repeals the Boulder Canyon Proj-
ect Act or the 1922 Colorado River Compact, or that
it is binding upon or impairs the rights of any state
not signatory to it.

The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact was en-
tered into in 1948 bv the states of Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. It apportions
50,000 acre-feet a year to Arizona and divides the
remainder of the Upper Basin's share of Colorado
River System water in these percentages: Colorado,
5 I.7 5; New Mexico, 11.25; Utah, 23.00; and Wyo-
ming, 14,00, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah have
areas in both the Upper and Lower Basins as they are
detined in the 1922 Compaer.

Colorado River Storage Pro;ect Act
In 1956 the Congress enacted Public Law 84-485
authorizing major developments in the Upper Basin,
consisting initially of four large storage units and
eleven uparticipating" water-use projects (since in-
creased in number), The participating projects, for
irrigation and other purposes, share in the benefits
of a basin fund deriving mostly from the sale of
electric power generated at the stor3ge units.

Because of many unanswered questions :IS to the
potential effects of the Project upon the Lower Basin,
California was constrained to oppose its authorization.
Althougb the bill was passed and construction of the
Project is far advanced, many of those fundamental
inrerbasin issues remain unresolved. At California's in-
sistence, however, the Act does direct the Secretary
of the Interior in operation of the facilities to compl)'
with all other documents in the Law of the River,
including contracts entered into there-under.

U. S. Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California
Failure of the three Lower Basin states to achieve
agreement as to sharing the water, despite long years
of negotiation and controversy, led finally to the Su-
preme Court suit tiled by Arizona in 1952, known
familiarly as Arizona v, California, et aJ. The tiling
was triggered by the refusal of a House of Representa-
tives committee in 1951 to approve a bill to authorize
federal construction of the Central Arizona Project, a
proposal to pump more than a miIlion acre-feet of
water annually from the main river into the Phoenix
area, California had opposed repeated attempts at
project authorization, cbiefly on the ground that the
river would not supply that quantity of water perma-
nently in addition to supplying the rhen existing uses
and commitments.

The decree, handed down March 9, 1964, was favor-
able to Arizona, in contirming the right of the state
to enough mainstream water to take care of her exist-

ing mainstream projects, plus the proposed new diver-
sion. Of COllrse, the decree does not and cannot guar-
antee physical availability of the water, Of the tirst
7,500,000 acte-feet per annum available in the Inain-
stream for use in the three Lower Basin states, the
Court awarded Arizona 2,800,000, California 4,400,000
and Nevada 300,000, AnI' excess above 7,500,000 acre-
feet is divided, 50 percent to California and 50 percent
to Arizona, except that Nevada may have 4 percent
if she desires, to come out of Arizona's half, How to
divide the supply in years of less than 7,500,000 acre-
feet, which ,viII surely occur as upstream uses increase,
the COUrt did not say, leaving thar decision to the
Secretar,' of the Interior unless and until the Congress
legislated on the subject.

Colorado River BlI8in Pro;ect Act
On September 30, 1968, the President signed the
Colorado River Basin Project Act (P.L. 90-537), Pas-
sage of this act culminated many years of effort,
negotiations, and compromises between California,
other Colorado River Basin States, the Columbia River
Basin States, the Federal government, conservation in-
terests and others, The bill was generally favorable
to California and was supported by its representatives
in Congress, Tbe broad objectives sought by the Colo-
rado River Board were achieved with the one disap-
pointment rhat Congress chose to apply a lO-year
moratorium on reconnaissance studies of possible im-
portation of Columbia River Water to the Colorado
River.

The major features of P,L. 90-537 are as follows:

1. The Central Arizona Project and several Upper
Colorado River Basin projects are authorized for
construction at an estimated total cost of $1,324,-
180,000 and the Dixie Project in southern Utah is
reauthorized at a cost of $58,000,000,

2, Existing California, Arizona, and Nevada contrac-
tors for water receive a priority of deliveries over
the Central Arizona Project, with California's pri-
ority limited to 4.4 million acre-feet per year.

3, The United States assumes the responsibility of
meeting the Mexican Treaty water deliveries when
the river is augmented.

4, The Secretary of the Interior is to study water
supply and requirements and develop a plan to meet
the ,,,.ater needs of the West, with the aforemen-
tioned prohibition against studying importation
from the Columbia River Basin to the Colorado
Rh'er Basin for 10 years.

5, A basin fund is established to help repay future
augmentation costs.

6, Priorities are established for the operation of the
major Colorado River reservoirs.

Even though this landmark act does provide the
framework to solve many of the problems of the
Colorado River Basin, much additional work must be
done to accomplish the objectives of the act,

15