My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02650
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02650
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:37:56 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:16:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Law of the River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1980
Author
Carlson and Boles
Title
Chapter 21 Contrary Biews of the Law of the Colorado River: An Examination of Rivalries Between the Upper and Lower Basins
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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 />21-11 <br /> <br />LA W OF THE COLORADO RNER <br /> <br />~ 21.02[5] <br /> <br />ter provided to them by the 1922 Compact.29 <br /> <br />The Upper Colorado River Compact apportions to each Up- <br />per Basin state the following percentage of the Upper Ba- <br />sin's total consumptive use of River water per annum: Colo- <br />rado, 51.75%; Utah, 23%; Wyoming, 14%; New Mexico, <br />11.25%. Arizona, whose northeast corner drains into the Up- <br />per Basin, was given a flat 50,000 acre-feet a year. "Con- <br />sumptive use" -was defined by Article VI as the man-made <br />depletions of the virgin flow measured at Lee's Ferry. This <br />definition, controverted by the Lower Basin, allows evapora- <br />tion and channel losses that would have occurred without a <br />state's diversions to be set off against its depletions.30 Article <br />IV of the Compact adjusts a state's apportionment in the <br />event it has overdrawn in the prior ten years. Reservoir <br />losses are apportioned to each state by Article V. <br /> <br />[5] Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 <br /> <br />Passed despite opposition from southern California,31 the <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act of 195632 was one fruit of <br />the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. It authorized con- <br />struction and operation of dams and power plants at Glen <br />Canyon, Flaming Gorge on the Green River, Curecanti <br />(newly renamed Wayne Aspinall) on the Gunnison River, <br />and a dam at Navajo on the San Juan River. In a compro- <br />mise with conservationists, a proposal to build a dam at Echo <br />Park on the Green was disapproved. The Act authorized the <br />initial phase of the Central Utah Project. It established an <br />Upper Colorado River Basin Fund to which operating reve- <br />nues would be credited and provided a percentage formula to <br />distribute surplus money in the Fund to each Upper Basin <br />state. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />29 See J, Muys, Interstate Water Compacts: The Interstate Compact and Federal-In- <br />terstate Compact 24-25 (National Water Commission Legal Study No, 14, 1971). <br /> <br />30 Indeed, this is often considered to be one of the major bones of contention be- <br />tween the two Basins, See, e.g., Giltches, supra note 7, at 423. <br />31 <br />Hundley, supro note 23. at 29. <br /> <br />3243 U.S.C ~ 620 (1982). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.