WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On33J~ tainty regarding the future supply of water available to Arizona. The United States Water and Power Re- sources estimates Arizona's firm supply for the Central Arizona Project at 400,000 acre-feet. sa At the time of trial even. allocations within the State were uncertain.1O The real Impact of additional Indian'Water rights is in the future. Whether Arizona relied to its detriment in , these respects is not yet determinable. . Arizona's reliance can, however, also be seen from a d.lfferent per~pect~ve. Arizona has consistently argued simply that It relied upon all Indian watel; rights as fixed by the 1964 Decree.1I Arizona's position might be supported by the view that in making its plans Arizona accepted all gains or losses arising from predictive er- ror. If the prediction was high and there was a shortfall, Arizona could accept that because it also knew that if the prediction was low it would have the benefit of the excess water in the otherwise leaner years when the Upper Basin was developed. In this manner also,Arizona might have detrimentally relied upon the 1964 Decree. Two ~th~r Sta~ Parties have presented similar, yet less convmcmg, eVIdence of reliance. The Metropolitan Water District, after losing certain water rights under the 1964 Decree, contracted with the California State Water Project for an additional annual entitlement of identical amount, the water to be used by Arizona for the Project." If all of the present Indian claims are upheld. the possible loss to the diversions for the Cen- tral Arizona Project would be 128,000 acre-feet per year resulting in a loss of delivery of 115,000 acre-feet per year to central Arizona. II This reliance analysis might be questioned because of some additional facts. Arizona presently expects that its firm supply of Colorsdo River water for the Central Arizona Project will be 550,000 acre-feet in the year 2035.'. When Congress considered the feasibility of the Project, it based its analysis on a firm supply of less than 316,500 acre-feet by the year 2030.17 Thus, Arizona might have more water available for J,18e in the Project than was anticipated when Arizona and Con- gress relied upon the 1984 Decree."1 From this infor- mation. it would appear that the Project would still have been built if the new firm supply had then been known even if it were reduced by the additional claims for the Reservations. But there is still great uncer- 24. Tr. 2123. 25. Tr. 2752. These figures offered by the Director o( the Arizona De- partment of Water Resources apparently accounted for 1000000to Arizona from the claims o( the Tribes aa well aa the cIaima of the United States. See Tr. 2723 (claims of government and Tribea would deplete the diver- siam to Central Arizona by 128,000 auo-feet por year). Apparently this figure representa an estimate o( the llIDount o( water claimed (or both omitted lands and boundary lands because Arizona contends that the omitted lands claim will "directly" street the amount o( water (or the Project, and that the Tribes, .. o( September, 1980, claimed 114.788 acre-feet of water for omitted lands and 10,S24 acre-foot of water {or boundary lands. Arizona Supplemental Rea Judicata Briol6 (May 1981). These latter figures assume a consumptive use rate of 4.0 aera.(eet per net acre. 26. Tr. 2707. 27. See note 19 supra. 28. The average ligures (or available water are similarly greater than expected. The current estimates sa offered by Arizona ara: y.... AYK.. FinD. 1986 1,600 1,600 2005 N/A '00 2035 1,000 I5liO .Tbeao fi&ures ore indicatecl ill thousanda 0' ocro.'oot per you. Tr. 2103. 2106.{)7. Compa,.. note 19 ,..pra. 29. Tr. 2767. 30. Tr. 2693-94, 2761. 2708-18- 31. Arizona Reply Brief {June 19811. 40 41