WSP05306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

capital obligations. The Department of Energy has developed criteria for marketing power from Hoover Dam and other dams on the Lower Colorado upon ex.pir-ation of the existing contracts,42 but there is no suggestion of depart- ~ I ~;.d.s>~9P~' rates based on recovery of costs of ~b~~~~~ ~ . ing from the present system of ~ projects, a matter that will v,ubd~~Y require congressional legislarion. ~ ~~ The federal government could react to national energy needs by appro- /1 priat~the flow of the Colorado for power generation. Government management . of the timing and amount of river flows solely to meet power needs could jeopardize water diversion patterns. A decision to manage the river primarily for power might be within the ambit of constitutional power over navigable waters and hence not a taking of property subject to compensation, but under h I f h i i Id b d. -f' 1 i' 43 t e aw 0 t e rver t wou e ~t leu t to ma ntaln. (shl) INDIAN AND FEDERAL RESERVED RIGHTS (5h:>) How Can Colorado River Basin Water Users Cope With Uncertainties Caused By The Existence Of Reserved Ri~hts? The Supreme Court in its 1963 Arizona v. California decision allocated about 900,OOU acre-feet of the Colorado River to the five Indian tribes located along the river and 79,000 acre-feet for federal lands in the vicini- ty. The allocation was based not on prior use but upon the doctrine of reserved righrs. The doctrine teaches that when federal or Indian lands are reserved, rights to sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reserva- 44 tion are also reserved. The needs to be met are those that existed at the time the reservation was set aside and any that may arise in the future. Later uses can displace uses by others who commenced their uses after the reservations were established. The Court has interpreted the purpose of the five Colorado River Indian - 15 -