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 />21-25 <br /> <br />LAW OF THE COLORADO RIVER <br /> <br />~ 21.03[2] <br /> <br />", <br /> <br />mained to operate the project.95 <br /> <br />The future will force restrictions on the Lower Basin, too. <br />Now that the CAP is functioning, California already must <br />scale back its delivery contracts with the Secretary of the In- <br />terior from their former level of 5,362,000 acre-feet per an- <br />num. When Upper Basin consumption approximates 5.8 <br />m.a.f., the Lower Basin will receive no more than 8.25 m.a.f. <br />at LeE:!'s Ferry and will be compelled to adjust its use. <br /> <br />But unlike the Upper Basin, the shortage of Colorado <br />River system water does not now threaten to reduce the <br />Lower Basin's use below its Article IlI(a) and (b) apportion- <br />ment. According to the current Compact orthodoxy,96 the <br />burden of deficiencies is to be borne by the Upper Basin-al- <br />though the Lower Basin must tighten its belt, it still retains <br />its apportioned amounts. Indeed, if the Upper Basin is re- <br />quired to provide half of the Mexican Treaty burden at Lee's <br />Ferry, the Lower Basin would continue to avail itself of most <br />of the water of its tributaries, thereby enjoying the use of <br />substantial amounts of water in excess of the 8.5 m.a.f. ap- <br />portionment. In contrast, the Upper Basin appears to be rel- <br />egated to accepting "leftovers." <br /> <br />Such inequity was not intended by the 1922 Compact. The <br />principal purposes of the Compact were: (1) to allocate the <br />water of the entire Colorado River system equally, with the <br />exception of a 1.0 m.a.f. extra allowance for the Lower Basin <br />to compensate for its tributaries; and (2) to assure each Basin <br />the opportunity to develop its water uses up to the limits of <br />its apportionment without interference from development in <br />the other Basin. The current presupposition that the Upper <br />Basin should be subordinated to the needs of the Lower vio- <br />lates the principles upon which the law of the River was <br />founded. <br /> <br />95 See Statement on the Operation of the San Juan-Chama Project, supra note 87; <br />Memorandum from Felix Sparks, supra note 78, at 1-3. <br />96 See. e.g., Clyde, "Conflicts Between the Upper and Lower Basins on the Colo- <br />rado River" in Resources Development: Fronti<!/'S for Research (Western Resources <br />Conference, 1960). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.