|
<br />118
<br />
<br />Edw",d \XI, Clyde
<br />
<br />00
<br />CD
<br />en
<br />C\.;;
<br />=
<br />o
<br />
<br />January 1983 Hoover Dam flood control releases of 1,168,000 acre-
<br />feet would be made; whereas, downstream requirements, including
<br />water for Mexico, for January were only about 431,000 acre.feet. This
<br />results in about 737,000 acre-feet being released from Hoover Dam
<br />in excess of downstream requirements. Such releases CQuld result 1n
<br />Mexico receiving substantially more water in January than it desires.
<br />We have no treaty obligation to provide storage for Mexico, and even
<br />if it was not able to use this released water, such releases should be
<br />counted against the total annual obligation, which for 1983 will be
<br />the 1,700,000 acre-feet.
<br />There are fede,"l statutes which specify that the required deliv-
<br />eries to Mexico will be supported from the reservoirs constructed by
<br />the United States, In 1968 the first of these statutes was adopted, in
<br />which Congress declared that "the satisfaction of the requirements of
<br />the Mexican Water Treaty from the Colorado River constitutes a
<br />national obligation. "" Congress also provided that should the Sec-
<br />retary of the Interior determine that means are available to augment
<br />the water supply of the Colorado River system sufficiently to satisfy
<br />the Mexican water ueary, the states of the upper and lower basins
<br />would be relieved from all obligations imposed by Article III(c) of the
<br />compact, The statute directed the Secretary of the Interior to "conduct
<br />full and complete reconnaissance investigations for the purpose of
<br />developing a general plan to meet the future water needs of the Western
<br />United StateS, "15 In that same statute, however, he is prohibited until
<br />1988 from studying the feasibility of transbasin diversions,
<br />Another statutel6 directs the Secretary of the Interior to coor~
<br />dinate long-range operation of the storage reservoirs on the Colorado
<br />River in order to carry out the provisions of the compact, the Upper
<br />Basin compact and the Mexican treaty. However, as we approach full
<br />development of the river, a prolonged drought could well exhaust the
<br />reservoirs and require curtailment of use in the United States,
<br />If the federal reservoirs and/or surplus flows cannot meet the
<br />obligation, we then would bring into play Article 10 of the Mexican
<br />treaty, which permits proportional reduction of required deliveries to
<br />Mexico if uses are curtailed in the United States, Next, under the
<br />terms of Article 1lI(c) of the Colorado River Compact, the burden of
<br />meeting any Mexican deficiency is placed equally on the Upper Basin
<br />and the Lower Basinj however. as noted above, the Upper Basin is
<br />
<br />L !i.
<br />r
<br />, l
<br />
<br />: "
<br />o ~!
<br />
<br />.I
<br />,
<br />
<br />, ,
<br />
<br />:, \
<br />
<br />, .
<br />;
<br />
<br />::
<br />
<br />I
<br />, I
<br />: I:
<br />:1'
<br />:'
<br />
<br />it
<br />I'
<br />t
<br />
<br />, "
<br />
<br />,I,
<br />I
<br />,
<br />
<br />i
<br />t
<br />t
<br />
<br />RESPONSE TO PROlONGF.D DROUGHT
<br />
<br />119
<br />
<br />(
<br />
<br />only required to deliver its one-half at Lee Ferry, There are channel
<br />losses in getting the water from Lee Ferry to the Mexican border which
<br />are not addressed, Then, curtailment of uses would be required under
<br />the individual laws of each state,
<br />It should be specifically noted, however, that the obligation to
<br />Mexico and the allocations between basins are on an annual basisi
<br />whereas, the lII(d) guarantee to the Lower Basin is on a ten-year basis,
<br />Thus, the delivery of water at Lee Ferry for the Lower Basin would
<br />not necessari Iy have to occur every year. So long as during each
<br />consecutive ten-year period the Upper Basin delivers seventy-five mil-
<br />lion acre-feet at Lee Ferry, its obligation is fulfilled, The Lower Basin
<br />can adjust to an overdelivery one year by storing the surplus, In any
<br />event. because of this inherent flexibility of the ten-year "continuing
<br />progressive series" in which the Upper Basin must not deplete the
<br />river below an average of seventy-five million acre-feet, the Upper
<br />Division might, in times of severe drought, try to rctain a di5propor~
<br />tionate amount of the available water for its own domestic and agri.
<br />cultural uses, on the assumption that the drought will end and that
<br />past overdeliveries and future rainfall will allow it within each ten.
<br />year period to meet its tcn-year average requirement. At any such
<br />time, the Lower Division could have surplus water from earlier ov~
<br />erdeliveries in storage, so that it also could maintain a higher level
<br />of current use.
<br />During negotiation of the Upper Basin compact, it was urged
<br />that perhaps curtailment of uses within the individual states ought to
<br />be on the basis of a ten-year average, because the obligarion to the
<br />Lower Basin states was on a ten~year average-in other words, a
<br />defiCiency in deliveries ar Lee Ferry in a particular year is not nec-
<br />cssarily the producr of overuse that year. but rather it could be the
<br />re.ulr of combined uses for the preceding ten years, Others, including
<br />myself, argued for curtailment on the basis of priority on an annual
<br />basis, and this view prevailed.
<br />If the water users in the Upper Basin states are required to curtail
<br />their use of water under their state permits, they would not be entitled
<br />to compensation therefor. Rights under state permits are simply subject
<br />to the limitations of interstate compacts. However, curtailment of
<br />state water rights perfected before the treaty, for the purpose of meeting
<br />
<br />;
<br />
<br />l\
<br />I
<br />i'
<br />r
<br />~I
<br />
<br />,I
<br />
|