WSP05673 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(').. ('. ,.... ~.LJU Since it is necessary to consider this proposal in the context of the litigation which continues under the decree in Arizona v. CalifoT1lia, the Attorney General was given the responsibility for coordinating California's views on this matter. At the request of the Office of the At- torney General, the Board staff compiled data and performed analyses to determine the effects that the proposal would have on California's in- terests. The official reply on this matter has been delayed pending receipt of additional informa- tion requested from the United States, and an- alysis thereof. Further discussion of the Topock Marsh problem is presented in the River Man- agement section of this report. United States v. Imperial Irrigation District. The trial to detennine whether the 160-acre water limitation law should apply to Imperial Valley landowners, originally scheduled for January 15, 1969, now has been set for Octo- ber 6, 1969, in U. S. District Court, San Diego, California. This lawsuit is the result of an opin- ion in 1964 by Interior Department Solicitor Frank]. Barry that the 160-acre water limita- tion, specified in the Reclamation Act of 1902, should be imposed on Imperial Valley land- owners. The Imperial Valley landowners base their opposition to the ruling on the following items: 1. Colorado water was first delivered into the Valley in 1901 via the Alamo Canal, built by the California Development Company. The Im- perial Irrigation District, formed in 1911, ac- quired the assets of the Company. 2. In 1933, Interior Secretary Ray Lyman Wilbur, who was charged with the administra- tion of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, issued an opinion that stated "These lands, already having a vested right, are entitled to have such vested right recognized without regard to acre- age limitation." 3. Successive Secretaries, up until 1962, ac- cepted the Wilbur opinion and administered water contracts with the, District accordingly. 4. Review of the legislative history of the Boulder Canyon Project Act indicates that Con- gress recognized the existence of excess land holdings in the District and did not impose the limitation on the Imperial Valley landowners. 22 5. Imperial Valley landowners possess "pres- ent perfected rights" to Colorado River waters, water rights acquired in accordance with state law, existing as of June 25, 1929. This date was the signing of the Boulder Canyon Project Act that authorized Hoover Dam and the .l\..H-J.'\..l1eri- can Canal ro deliver water to Imperial Valley. At a pre-trial conference held in San Diego, California, on September 13, 1968, the parties filed a stipulation of facts and agreed ro a sched- ule of litigation proceedings. The State of Cali- fornia as intervening defendant in this case, filed a pre-trial brief with the United States District Court, San Diego, on November 13, 1968. The Board staff provides engineering support ro the Attorney General's Office as necessary. Water Supplies and Deliveries The staff continued its collection of basic data on water supplies and deliveries, estimates of unmeasured items and projections of all items affecting the water budget of the Colorado River. Data in this section are reported for the water year from Ocrober 1, 1967 through Sep- tember 30, 1968. Stream Flow and Storage. The flow of Colorado River at Lee Ferry during the 1967-68 water year was 8,318,000 acre-feet. The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that if there had been no upstream man-made depletions, the virgin flow at Lee Ferry would have been approxi- mately 13,660,000 acre-feet. For comparison, the estimated annual average undepleted or vir- gin flow was 13.7 million acre-feet during the 1922-68 period of record and 14.8 million acre- feet during the 1896-1968 period. Plate 4 shows estimated annual virgin flows at Lee Ferry since 1896. The major portion of the annual runoff in the Upper Basin occurs during the April-July runoff period. It is for this reason that there is usuallv a keen interest in the early forecasts of spring runoff by the Bureau of Reclamation, es- pecially during the below average flows in recent years which have delayed the filling of Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs to the antici- pated operating levels. Climatological data early in the 1967-68 water year gave a good indication of the future runoff for the year. Table 1 sum- marizes the Bureau's forecasts of the 1968 April- July inflow to Lake Powell. The actual inflow