|
<br />24
<br />
<br />('.\LH"ORNIA'S STAKE IN THE COLORADO RTVER
<br />
<br />('ontrnct with the :-:'tll.te of Nevada. (Amending an earlier contract of
<br />1942.)
<br />
<br />CONFLICTING DEVELOPMENTS
<br />
<br />Then' han beelL several developlllt'llts, and more are in the making.
<br />which conflict with California's rifl'hlS to Colorado River water and
<br />jeopordizl:' all of these carefully laid plans to provide a rt'8sonahly ade-
<br />quate wat('[' supply for Southern California.
<br />
<br />Mexican Water Treaty
<br />The Mexican Water Treaty, as ratified 011 November 8, 1945, guaran-
<br />tel."S Mrxico an annual delivE'ry of 1,500,000 acre.feE't of water from the
<br />Colorado River System. Under practieal operation of the rh'e~ duE' to
<br />various technical factors it appears probable that a yearly d("hvery of
<br />over] 700000 acre-feet ~f water will be required, This delivery ?f wa-
<br />ter to' Me~ico will have to be supplied chiefly from storage ID the
<br />United States. l.r .
<br />This treaty was approved oyer the strenuo~s o?jections of Ca.1 ,orDla
<br />and Ne,\'ana. It was supported hy the legislative representatnes of
<br />Arizona and all of the Upper Basin States. Ho~ever, many of t~e
<br />water-user organizstiom. ill Arizona and several III t,he ~pper B~1n
<br />States opposed the tr('at;-.', and some of these orgamzatlOns testified
<br />lINainst the tresh' at the Senate hearings. The effect of the treaty
<br />il7 meetill"" the r~quired delivery to Mexico is to create a demaud on
<br />the Color;do Riwr Systf.'IU of nearly. 1,000,000 ~er~"fee't more water
<br />than was 8uticipated at aD)' time pnor to negotiatIOn of t~e treaty.
<br />The Mexican Water Treat,Jo" has apparently created a first hen on all
<br />of the water supplY of the river from "any and all sources, ", The
<br />result is that the w~ter budget of the river has been thrown drastICally
<br />out of bll.lance. As IOllg as the treaty is in .effect, it appear~ that the
<br />wllter required to meet the deliveries to.Mexlco must b~ furDl~hed .even
<br />at the expense of users within the UnIted States havmg prior TJghts
<br />Ihereto,
<br />
<br />PJ:'opoled Ne-w Projecu
<br />California's rights to Colorado River water are j~opardized ~till fur-
<br />th('r by proposals to authorize and construct certam n,ew proJects for
<br />the di\'('rsion amI use of the waters of the Colorado RIver S~'stenI. In
<br />I\Iar('h, 1946, the Bur('8U of Reclamation iss~ed a comprehensIve rep~rt
<br />Oil the Colorado River which presents an IDventor)' of 134 P?tl"utlal
<br />lIew projects within the basin and also refers to several. potential new
<br />ro 'ecls for exportation of water from the Upper ~aslD. The report
<br />~etsJ forth the fact that the combined water re~Ulreme~ts of these
<br />potential new projects and existing and authorLZed proJects, wonld
<br />exceed b... about 25 percent the long-time ~...e~age wate; supply of the
<br />Colorado' Ri...er S)'stem available for use Within the UUlted.States.
<br />Of particular concern to California have been an~ stIli a~e new
<br />.. .t.... developmentfl in the Upper Colorado Rn:er BaSin and
<br />maJO. W .... . 'A the
<br />two new projects in Arizona, One of the new proJects III nzona-
<br />
<br />. "0
<br />
<br />'."
<br />
<br />}.'!....... ~
<br />,").
<br />',"'1
<br />
<br />':.
<br />
<br />.'"
<br />
<br />-:~".'~..,-
<br />
<br />_ .' "':': ',.:''':,:''7.-:''~-:;-'(:'''<;-~':,:",,~':,
<br />
<br />'.-......: ~:-,..
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />:5..
<br />
<br />. '-~' -.
<br />
<br />...,',
<br />
<br />CALlFORNIA.'8 STA.KE IN THE COLORA.DO RIVER
<br />
<br />f
<br />
<br />Gila Project-has already been completed. The other and much larger
<br />undertaking-the Cenlral Arizona Project-is still in the proposal
<br />stage.
<br />Upper Colorado River Balin Projectl
<br />Bills were introduced in the 83d Congress (1953-54) and again in the
<br />84th CongreSli (1955-56) to authorize as Federal Reclamation nnder.
<br />takings a major plan for development of the Upper Colorado River
<br />Basin, called the Colorado River Storage Project and Participating
<br />Proje<.-\s, and a related development designated the Fryingpan.Arkan.
<br />sas Project. The over-all major plan comprises nine large dams and res-
<br />en'oirs with hydroelectric plants on the COlorado River Dnd principal
<br />tributaries above Lee Ferr,y, and an indefinite numher of "participat_
<br />ing" reclamation projects, to enable the Upper Basin to develop its
<br />legal share of the remaining beneficial consumptive UBe of water of the
<br />Colorado River System. Initial constrnctiou cost, as estimated hy the
<br />Bureau of Reclamation would be one to one and a half billion dollars.
<br />Ultimate cost would be B...e billion dollars or more.
<br />The Fr.ringpan-Arkansas Project, although sought to be authorized
<br />in separate bills, is a definite part of the o\-er.al! plan of development.
<br />It proposes a transmountain diversion of water from the Colorado River
<br />Basin to the Arkam.as River Basin and additional conservation and
<br />use of Arkansas River waters, to provide a supplemental irrigation
<br />supply to lands along the Arkansas River in Colorado, furnish munici-
<br />pal water supplies to cities and towns in the area and also provide for
<br />Hood control and hydroelectric power production. The cost of tbe proj_
<br />ect is most recently estimated by the bureau at $170 million.
<br />SubsE'flUently additional partiCipating projects of the Upper Ba.sin
<br />deHlopmeut have been proposed for authorization including the Navajo
<br />Indian Irrigation Project and the San JU8.n-Cbama Project in New
<br />Me.J:ic(. and the Savery-Pot Hook Project in Wyoming and Colorado.
<br />The Navajo Indian Irrigation Project is planned to furnish a water
<br />suppl)" from the Navajo Resel"\"oir, now under construction on the San
<br />Juan Riwr as a unit of the Storage Project, for the irrigation of 110,-
<br />000 acres of raw land in the Indian reser\"ation, at an estimated cost
<br />of $178 million including the cost of Navajo Dam and Reser"voir. The
<br />San Juan"Chama Project is planned to divert water from San Juan
<br />River tributaril:'s for supplemental irrigation and IIluuicipal use in the
<br />Rio Gruude Basin. at all estimated cost of $86 million. The Savery. Pot
<br />Hook Project is planned for the irrigation of 38,000 acres of land at
<br />all estimated cost of $15 million. Plans for many additional participat.
<br />ing projects are being pressed 10 completion looking to early author_
<br />ization,
<br />California favors sound beneficial development of the water resources
<br />of the Upper Basin, provided the developments are ecouomically feasible
<br />and are carried out with due regard to the rights of California uJlder
<br />the Colorado Ri\'er Compaet alld the Boulder Canyon Project Act,
<br />
<br />'1
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />25
<br />
<br />...
<br />
<br />t.
<br />
<br />".
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />(.
<br />>.' '. . .
<br />
<br />
<br />.,:-
<br />
<br />
<br />..:, > '.<
<br />
<br />'.~'-;: :_,';~~.~~;" ~
<br />. ':'-'-'.'
<br />
<br />.",.
<br />
<br />",,'
<br />
|