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 />~ 21.02[7] <br /> <br />MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE <br /> <br />21-16 <br /> <br />California recovered from the Congress much of what it <br />had lost from the Supreme Court. The Act directs the Secr:;- <br />tary of the Interior to administer the CAP so that California <br />never receives less than 4.4 m.a.f.48 In effect, then the Lower <br />Basin's burden under the Mexican Treaty was shifted back <br />to Arizona as the price of approval of the CAP. To distribute <br />the federal benefits somewhat more evenly, the Act also au- <br />thorized one project in Utah and the Animas-LaPlata, Dolo- <br />res, DaHas Creek, West Divide, and San Miguel projects in <br />Colorado at a cost of $360 million.49 The Secretary was in- <br />structed to proceed "as' nearly as practicable . . . concur- <br />rently with the construction of the Central Arizona Project" <br />and these five Upper Basin projects, and to have them com- <br />pleted no later than the completion of the CAP. 50 Certain ad- <br />ministrative concessions were also accorded to the Upper Ba- <br />sin by the Act. The Secretary was directed to calculate and <br />report upon the beneficial uses of River water in each state, <br />including the water of tributaries.51 He was also required to <br />devise criteria for the storage of water in Lake Powell so <br />that the Upper Basin's Mexican Treaty and Article III(d) de- <br />livery obligations could be performed without impairment of <br />its annual consumptive uses sanctioned by the Compact.52 <br />The same provision of the Act mandates that the Secretary <br />release from Lake Powell for certain purposes the water <br />which is not required to be stored according to the criteria; <br />but, except to avoid anticipated spills from Lake Powell, no <br />such releases are to occur "when the active storage in Lake <br />Powell is less than the active storage in Lake Mead." 53 <br /> <br />48 leI. ~ 1521(b). <br />49 ld. at ~ 620. <br />50 <br />ld. ~ 620 a-l. <br />51 ld. at ~ 1551(b). <br />52 <br />ld. ~ 1552(aX3). <br />53 leI. Apart from mimicking the language of the statute itself. the Bureau of Rec- <br />lamation has not developed these criteria. See Letter from Bob Broadbent, Assis- <br />tant Secretary for Water and Science, U.S, Department of Interior. to Gerald Zim- <br />merman. Executive Director, Upper Colorado River Commission, at 2, March 14, <br />1986. Some Upper Basin observers worry that a court might subsequently be <br />tempted to regard the Bureau's effective nonfeasance to date in this respect as <br />grounds to justify its perpetual nonfeasance, thereby negating the statutory direc- <br />tive. The Upper Basin has also been disturbed by the Bureau's release of water from <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.