My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05306
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:57:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Getches and Meyers
Title
The River of Controversy - Persistent Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.' <br /> <br />~hat bears almost no relation to the amounts of water" each contributes to the <br /> <br />river's flow. <br /> <br />lO <br />The 1922 compact, the first illt~rstate water compact, was <br /> <br />intended to strike an accomodacion becween the expanding demands ot the Lower <br /> <br />Hasin and the need to preserve adequate water for future use in the less <br /> <br />developed Upper Basin, che source of vircually all che river's water. The <br /> <br />compact would enable conscruction of scorage facilities co procect the Lower <br /> <br />Basin from floods and co make use of wacer needed for a growing populacion. <br /> <br />The Upper Basin staces -- Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah <br /> <br />saw the <br /> <br />compacC as a way of prevencing river wacer from <br /> <br />being monopolized by Califor- <br />v-.- ~ <br /> <br />~A <br />prioritie'n <br /> <br />.Q~ I <br />vJ,A "f- ' <br /> <br />nia and Arizona chrough the establishment of legal <br /> <br />The compacc assured che Lower Basin states -- Arizona, California and <br /> <br />Nevada -- a guaranceed flow of sevency-five million acre-feec over a progres- <br /> <br />sive series of cen year periods. The concemplation of che drafters was thac <br /> <br />an average of 7.5 million acre-feet a year would give each basin, upper and <br /> <br />lower, an approximately equal share of che flow; in years when the flow per- <br /> <br />mitced, che faster developing Lower Hasin would be able to use any wacer che <br /> <br />Upper Basin could noC use, buc Che compacC effeccively set a ceiling on che <br /> <br />11 <br />quantity of righcs that could be perfected. further, the two basins were to <br /> <br />share equally any burden there mighc be to deliver water co Mexico, an obli- <br />12 <br />gation lacer set at 1.5 million acre-feec. <br /> <br />Physical realities provoke a number of quescions, the answer to which <br /> <br />could have serious consequences for the Upper Basin. The mosC stunning real- <br /> <br />ity is thac the allocation of the river was made on che incorrect assumpcion <br /> <br />chat there would be annual flow of at least Ib.5 million acre-feec.13 In <br /> <br />facc, data spanning chree cencuries reveal an average flow of about 13.5 mil- <br />14 <br />lion acre-feet. Furchermore, annual flows are erracic, ranging from 4.4 <br /> <br />million acre-feet to over 22 million acre-feet.15 The compacc's decennial <br /> <br />- 6 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.