WSP05306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

wat~r equally w~re followed, the Upper Basin obligation to the Lower Basin would be reduced by more than a million acre-feet a year. The compact is a crucial foundation of the law of the river and that law has been an integral part of decisions to fund projects costing billions of dollars. The allocations in the compact also formed part of the backdrop for the United States Supreme Court's 1963 Arizona v. California decision. Only the Supreme Court would have the temerity to manipulate this intricate legal web. And that Court may fear the upsets and dislocations it would bring. Still, the argument is credible enough that it might prod the Lower Basin states to consider consenting to a revision of the compact or an elucidation of its meaning. ~~ the precise obligations of ning for growth and for future water the Upper Basin ~J/ projects ,?,!-be ~ stat~& known, plan- don71intelligently. Certainty would also facilitate economic adjustments between the two basins. An Upper Basin state could plan development of its share of water but if a Lower Basin state believes it has more valuable uses, a lease or other agree- ment might be negotiated ro allow use of the Upper Basin water in the Lower Basin states. The Lower Basin srate would effectively pay the Upper Basin state to forego the development and thereby secure a larger, more reliable supply. But uniess the parties know their obligations and entitlements such transfers are unlikely. How Can lnbasin And lnstream Uses Be Balanced Against Water Needs Outside The Basin? (sh2) Colorado River water has been allocated among the Lower Basin states by 23 24 Congress and among the Upper Basin states by compact, Each state can allocate its share of watet as it wishes. It should not be surprising, then, that most Colorado River water is used outside the watershed that produces the - 10 -