My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00913
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00913
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:28:27 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:01:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272.600.60
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Basin Member State Info - Utah
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/7/1975
Title
Colorado Regional Assessment Study - Phase One Report for the National Commission on Water Quality - Part 2 of 2 -- Chapter VI - end
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
288
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />o <br />00 <br />o <br /> <br />to Mexico, the Upper Basin guarantee of 75 m. a. f. per decade, and <br /> <br />carryover storage necessary to meet those foregoing obligations, were <br /> <br />to be given preference in that order. Guidelines for maintaining parity <br /> <br />in the active storage between Lake Mead and Lake Powell were also man- <br /> <br />dated. The Secretary of the Interior promulgated detailed criteria in <br /> <br />17 <br />1970. The actual experience under these legal guidelines is described <br /> <br />annually in a department report. 18 <br /> <br />Interstate and Tribal Allocation. Statutory Apportionment Among <br /> <br />the Lower Division States. Congress, whether it fully appreciated it <br /> <br />then or not, apportioned the consumptive use of the river among the lower <br /> <br />division states through the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. According <br /> <br />to the majority opinion in Arizona v. California, <br /> <br />Congress decided that a fair division of the first 7,500,000 <br />acre-feet of such mainstream waters would give 4,400,000 <br />acre-feet to California, 2,800,000 to Arizona, and 300,000 <br />to Nevada; Arizona and California would each get one-half <br />of any surplus. ***Division of the water did not... depend <br />on the States' agreeing to a compact, for Congress gave the <br />Secretary of the Interior adequate authority to accomplish <br />the division. Congress did this by giving the Secretary <br />power to make contracts for the delivery of water and by <br />providing that no person could have water without a <br />contract.19 <br /> <br />California had sought to have the Court allocate the flow under the doc- <br /> <br />trine of equitable apportionment, whereby priority could be given to the <br /> <br />early appropriations of California users. 20 <br /> <br />California regained some lost ground in 1968 when Congress gave <br /> <br />the state's right holders a priority to the extent of the 4.4 m. a. f. over <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.