WSP02650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" , , 21-9 LA W OF THE COLORADO RIVER S 21.02[3] agree to a limit on its share of the Lower Basin's Article I1I(a) apportionment. Consequently the Act also provided that before it became effective all seven states had to ratify the Compact, or that six states, including California, ratify and that California also enact legislation confining itself to no more than 4.4 m.a.f. (million acre-feet) of the 7.5 m.a.f. ap- portioned to the lower states by Article IlI(a), plus not more than half of the surplus water un apportioned by the Com- pact. It also pre-approved any compact which Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Nevada might enter into apportioning 300,000 acre-feet of the Article III(a) water to Nevada, 2.8 m.a.f. to Arizona, and 4.4 m.a.f. or less to California, allowing Arizona exclusive beneficial use of the waters of the Gila, and ex- empting the Gila's Arizona tributaries from any obligation to supply water to Mexico under Article III(c), and requiring that the Mexican burden be fulfilled equally by California and Arizona from mainstream water. [3] The Mexican Treaty of 1944 On February 3, 1944, the United States and Mexico signed a "Treaty. . . Relating To Waters of the Colorado and Ti- juana Rivers a:nd Of The Rio Grande." 20 Mexico was thought to have been using about 1.8m.a.f. as of 194421 (as opposed to about 820,000 acre-feet as of 1922)22 primarily to irrigate croplands in its fertile Mexicali Valley, which lies in the same basin as the Imperial Valley. Article X of the Treaty guaranteed an annual delivery of 1.5 m.a.f. of water to Mex- ico and an additional amount up to a total of 1.7 m.a.f. if the United States enjoyed a surplus. In the event of extraordi- nary drought or serious accident to its irrigation system, the Treaty also allowed the United States to reduce the delivery below 1.5 m.a.f. in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the United States were reduced. 20 T.S. No. 94, 59 Stat. 1219 (1944). 21 Hundley, supra note 9, at 296. 22 See 1 Record, supra note 19, Sess. No.6, at 70-71. Ironically, water use by Mexi- can landholders increased in part as a result of the beneficial effects to them of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. See Hundley, supra note 9, at 296.