WSP02650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'; ~ ~ 21.04[1] MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE 21-28 The Lower Basin States contend that there is no surplus and the Upper Basin's share of the Mexican treaty deliv- ery obligation is therefore one-half of the total obligation of 1.5 m.a.f. plus one-half of the losses incurred in deliver- ing the water from Lee's Ferry to the Mexican border. The Upper Basin states believe that surplus water exists in the Lower Basin and therefore they are not required to release any water to meet the Mexican treaty obligation.104 ~ 21.04 - Possible Avenues of Relief From Unintended Restrictions [1] Resolution of the Controversy Under Article VI of the 1922 Compact The Upper Basin states could seek relief from the unin- tended restrictions of the law of the river through a mecha- nism provided by the 1922 Compact itself. Article VI states that: Should any claim or controversy arise between any two or more of the Signatory States. . . (b) over the meaning or performance ofthe terms of this compact; [or] (c) as to the allocation of the burdens incident to the performance of any article of this compact or the delivery of waters as herein provided . . . the Governors of the States affected, upon the request of one of them, shall forthwith appoint Commissioners with power to consider and adjust such claim or controversy, subject to ratification by the Legisla- tures of the States so affected. Unfortunately, though, this provision would seem not to ma- terially enhance the present prospects for a resolution of the fundamental issues. Each state is given two opportunities to prevent a settlement. Either its commissioner can refuse'ipi- tially to accept an agreement, or its legislature can withhold ratification. There is simply not now any incentive for the Lower states to deprive themselves voluntarily of a substan- tial portion of their Compact water in order to ease the plight of their northern neighbors. 104 Report to the Congress of the United States. supra note 64, at 10.