|
<br />IZZ
<br />
<br />Edu'ard W. Clyde
<br />
<br />fected, Estimates of the present value of salinity damage through the
<br />year WOO range from I billion to 1.5 billion dollars, The court con-
<br />cluded by saying: "It is obvious that salinity in the river is a very
<br />significant problem with not only serious impact in the basin, but also
<br />indirect consequences far outside the basin." Salinity problems become
<br />worse during low flows, and if the amount of water released to Mexico
<br />is proportionately reduced because of curtailment in the United States,
<br />it will be a problem to meet the obligation to deliver water of rea-
<br />sonable quality with such reduced flows,
<br />
<br />CJ
<br />en
<br />C>)
<br />"~
<br />C)
<br />o
<br />
<br />The Upper Colorado River Compact
<br />
<br />Even though the water of the Colorado River had been appor-
<br />tioned between the upper and lower basins, the Bureau of Reclamation
<br />had reached a point in 1946 where, in effect, it refused to certify that
<br />thete was an available water supply for large new projects in the Upper
<br />Basin, The Bureau had proceeded, pursuant to the Boulder Canyon
<br />Project Act and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, enacted
<br />in 1940,17 to investigate the development of the Colorado River. A
<br />report bv the Department offnterior had been issued on June 7, 1946,
<br />By way of conclusion, it stated that a comprehensive plan for the
<br />development of the Colorado River Basin could not be formulated
<br />because the rights of the individual states to utilize the waters of the
<br />Colorado River system had not been determined, It noted that water
<br />supplies for proposed projects could be assured by a compact among
<br />the states of the separate basins, by appropriate court action, or through
<br />congressional action. It encouraged the states of both the Upper Basin
<br />and the Lower Basin to proceed expeditiously to determine their re-
<br />spective rights. The Upper Basin states so proceeded and the Upper
<br />Colorado River Basin Compact was signed on October II, 1948, in
<br />Santa Fe, New Mexico,
<br />This compact did not try to determine the precise amount of
<br />water each Upper Basin state would receive, Rather, it apportioned
<br />the water allocated to the Upper Basin by the 1922 compact on a
<br />percentage basis. Arizona, with relatively small acreage in the Upper
<br />Basin, was allotted its consumptive use of fifty thousand acre~(eet of
<br />water per annum. The allocations to the other states were made on
<br />
<br />,
<br />,
<br />, I.
<br />
<br />" 'll
<br />i ~.
<br />j
<br />
<br />.,.;
<br />
<br />~
<br />"
<br />
<br />~.
<br />
<br />~ II
<br />
<br />" :.
<br />, "
<br />.
<br />
<br />, 1
<br />,.
<br />, I,
<br />",11
<br />I
<br />1'1
<br />"
<br />
<br />, ,
<br />: ~..
<br />~ .
<br />
<br />'. ,I
<br />, i,
<br />
<br />" I
<br />I j;
<br />i;1
<br />,"
<br />,
<br />jifl
<br />I
<br />
<br />l'.,
<br />~r .
<br />
<br />RESPONSE TO PROLONGED DROUGHT
<br />
<br />lZ3
<br />
<br />~:
<br />!
<br />
<br />I
<br />\
<br />,;
<br />"
<br />
<br />a percentage basis: to Colorado, 51. 75 percent; to New Mexico, 11. 25
<br />percent; to Utah, 23 percent; to Wyoming, 14 percent.
<br />In essence, the apportionment among the individual states gives
<br />the rights to deplete the river at Lee Ferry, Article VI provides that
<br />the commission shall determine the quantity of consumptive use by
<br />"the inflow, outflow method in terms of man-made depletions of the
<br />virgin flow at Lee Ferry, unless the commission by unanimous action
<br />shall adopt a different method of determination," The commission is
<br />thus told by Article VI to measure the effect that a manmade depletion
<br />by any state will have on the flow at Lee Ferry, In addition to return
<br />flow, it is possible that a diversion of water will cut down evaporation
<br />losses or channel losses, will stop the river from flooding over its banks,
<br />or will dry up a swamp, The Upper Basin seeks to take advantage of
<br />all water so salvaged and to be charged only with net depletions of
<br />the river at Lee Ferry, In my opinion, the Upper Basin states will
<br />never voluntarily agree that "exclusive beneficial consumptive use,"
<br />as that term is used in the 1922 compact, means the amount diverted
<br />without such credits. Water returned to the stream has not been
<br />consumed.
<br />I attended all of the sessions resulting in the drafting and final
<br />execution of the Upper Basin compact and have heretofore analyzed
<br />it in depth."
<br />One of the major problems encountered was the protection of a
<br />downstream state against an upstream state concentrating diversions
<br />of its compact allocation from a particular stream, Wyoming is. and
<br />Utah might be, dependent primarily upon the Green River, A study
<br />of the Engineering Advisory Committee indicated that in normal
<br />periods of runoff this combined demand would not cause a problem,
<br />nor would it do so on the basis of a long~time average. However,
<br />during extreme drought conditions continuing for a period of years,
<br />if Wyoming diverted and used its full entitlement and also insisted
<br />upon filling empty reservoirs it could prevent Utah from getting its
<br />allorted share during that year, Utah insisted that language be placed
<br />in the compact which would prohibit combined uses and diversion
<br />into storage in anyone year in excess of Wyoming's 14 percent, if the
<br />effect of that excess use (storage and consumption) would deprive
<br />Utah of the opportunity to get its apportioned share that year.
<br />To me, the definition of "apportionment" as being an apportion-
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />!.
<br />i
<br />
<br />f
<br />i
<br />I
<br />
|