|
<br />126
<br />
<br />Edward \Xl Clyde
<br />
<br />1922 (the date of the signing of the original compact) are to be
<br />eliminated. The Upper Colorado Commission was authorized to de~
<br />termine when such curtailment should be made, and the amount
<br />thereof,
<br />At the final session in Santa Fe, whete the compact was being
<br />finalized, two points were made: first, that curtailment of uses in the
<br />Upper Basin would only occur when the reservoirs were empty. or
<br />nearly emptYi and. second. that the water stored in the reservoirs was
<br />not held there for the account of any state. but was held in common,
<br />In explaining the draft to the negotiating commission, the following
<br />occurred:
<br />
<br />Mr. Clyde:. . there are four essential parts of this
<br />article. . . . The first one is that this will only apply after the
<br />reservoirs are empty and there is still ;l shortage at Lee Ferry. If
<br />the reservoirs are taking care of it this won't come into
<br />operation at all. Second, if curtailment is necessary becCluse
<br />resen,'oirs are empty, then the curt~lIlntent is allocated to the
<br />states based upon the use that they are making of the water
<br />. . . rather than on the allocation to the state.
<br />
<br />In taking those uses the uses prior to 1922 are excluded.
<br />
<br />And the last thing is the penalty provision that if any st~te has
<br />used more than its allocated share, then it must make it up by
<br />returning to the source, the excess it has used during the
<br />previous 10-year period, (pp, 76-77)
<br />
<br />e>-1
<br />0">
<br />en
<br />N
<br />C"l
<br />c::;J
<br />
<br />The Chainnan: It seems to the Chairman that this article in
<br />some way assumes that a state is going to overuse its allotment
<br />by failing to contribute to the main stem reservoirs. . . .
<br />
<br />Mr. Cl:yde: I think this article will only come into oper<ltion
<br />when the reservoirs are empty.
<br />
<br />The Chainnan: Not necessarily, sir. I don't think you are
<br />correct.
<br />
<br />Mr. Cl:yde: Or so low that they can't make up the oblig<Hion at
<br />Lee Ferry.
<br />
<br />Mr. Riter: Yes, Mr. Clyde is absolutely right. You operate the
<br />reservoirs when the flow approaches the minimum; you srarr
<br />releasing water. l1
<br />
<br />A question was then asked as to whether or not an accounting
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />"'~'k
<br />'J "
<br />
<br />.~
<br />'}
<br />
<br />',1\ ",:.
<br />;r.
<br />.~ I
<br />I'.'
<br />, ,
<br />
<br />, .~'.
<br />
<br />:~ ?
<br />.;
<br />':'1
<br />
<br />'\ t.
<br />
<br />"; '"
<br />
<br />';",
<br />
<br />": :
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />I,
<br />" i
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />.~ '
<br />< f,..
<br />,
<br />
<br />/
<br />.Y 'J:.
<br />"
<br />
<br />,\
<br />
<br />RESPONSE TO PROLONGED DROUGHT
<br />
<br />127
<br />
<br />should be kept of the water bypassed by each state into the large main-
<br />stem reservoirs. The answer was that there would be no such account~
<br />ing, but rather the water in those reservoirs would be owned in com~
<br />mon, The following is taken from the record of proceedings:
<br />
<br />The Chairman: This assumes then that some state has not been
<br />contributing to the main stem reservoirs in accordance with
<br />the provisions of the compactr
<br />
<br />Mr, Breitenstein: . . . I think the warer is going to be owned in
<br />the reservoirs in common and you are not going ro attempt to
<br />keep track of what each state contribu(es to rhe
<br />reservoir. . . . D
<br />
<br />i.
<br />
<br />Allocation in the Lower Basin
<br />
<br />In 1963 the United States Supreme Court held that the waters
<br />of the Lower Basin had been allocated among the individual states by
<br />Congress," although I do not believe that Congtess ever intended to
<br />do SO.H
<br />Insofar as tha( allocation is concerned it will suffice here to note
<br />that the Court held that Congress had provided for the allocation,
<br />As a condition to having the compact become effective as a six~state
<br />compact, California had adopted on March 4, 1929, what is usually
<br />referted to as the California Limitation Act," By the terms of the act
<br />and fot the exptess benefit of the other six states (including Atizona),
<br />California "irrevocably and unconditionally agreed" that the aggregate
<br />annual consumptive use of Colorado River water in California should
<br />not exceed 4,400,000 acte-feet of the water apportioned to the Lower
<br />Basin states by the compact, plus not more than one-half of any
<br />sutplus, "Consumptive use" was defined in a patenthetical exptession
<br />as "diversions less returns to the river." This fixed a limitation on
<br />California's share, Nevada had never argued for more than 300,000
<br />acre-feet and the othet states always appeated to agree. Of course,
<br />this left 2,800,000 acre-feet which the Court said had been allocated
<br />to Arizona. The Lower Basin tributaries were also awarded to Arizona.
<br />The fact that Utah has some Lower Basin streams and lands was not
<br />addressed,
<br />The Special Master had determined that shortages should be
<br />shared on the basis of the basic allocation, but the Court disagreed,
<br />
|