WSP07317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. ~ \' " i::t:..J..; LITIGATION I I A,izono v. Clllifomill Present Perfected Rights. During the year, the Board's staff continued to furnish technical assistance to the Attorney General in Arizona v. California post-decree proceed- ings, Activities during 1970 included the analysis of supplemental information on pre- sent perfected rights claims of the various parties filed with the Supreme Court pursu- ant to Article VI of the decree. As defined in Article l( G) and (H) of the decree, "present perfected rights" are rights to mainstream waters acquired under state law and meas- ured by the extent of water applied to a de- fined area or to definite municipal or indus- trial works prior to June 25, 1929, They also include all mainstream water reserved for federal establishments and Indian reserva- tions prior to that date regardless of use. The written proposal for adjustments to the major present perfected rights claims of Arizona agencies which was received near the end of 1969 was analyzed by the Colorado River Board staff during 1970. The claims were in terms of diversions and not in terms of consumptive use as required by the decree. Various informal proposals were made by parties to the action during the year to revise the claims so as to comply with the decree, but at the end of 1970, agreement had not been reached. During 1969, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California submitted to the Attorney General its objections to cer- tain present perfected rights claims filed by the State of California in behalf of certain miscellaneous users of Colorado River water, including the City of Needles. Early in 1970 the Board's staff discussed these objections with representatives of the Attorney General and Metropolitan. Subsequently, the Board's staff and representatives of the Attorney General met with officials of the City of Nee- dles and explained to them Metropolitan's i. objection to that city's present perfected rights claim. Official Diversion and Return Flow Re- cords. The Board staff analyzed the compi- lations of diversion and return flow records for the calendar year 1969 which were pre- pared by the Department of the Interior in . accordance with Article V of the decree. Analysis of this data indicates that some of the recurring accounting problems of the riv- er are still not resolved. The most pertinent items were: 1. Article V(A). Using the reported records, a wa- ter budget for the reach of the river between Hoo- ver and Davis Dams continues to result in an un- realistic, computed gain of about 200,000 acre-feet per year. An investigation of the accuracy of the data is under way, and a report from the Bureau of Reclamation is expected on this item. 2. Article V(B). The Bureau of Reclamation con- tinues to use only measured surface now in credit- ing water users with return flows to the river. However, the Department of the Interior has re~ ceody initiated a study on determination of un- measured return nows to the river. (See subse- quent section on the Lower Colorado River Return Flow Study Task Force.) 3. Article V(C). There remains an incomplete ac- counting of water ordered but not diverted. The data as presented are misleading in that it gives the appearance that a wasteful operation is being con- ducted and that a large quantity is lost to the Colo- rado River Basin by making excess deliveries to Mexico. To correct any such misinterpretation, fu- ture reports should show the disposition of such water. By letter of October 20, 1970, to James R. Smith, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General expressed dissatisfac- tion with the above items and recommended appropriate revisions to future reports, Mr. Smith, in reply, indicated that full considera- tion would be given to California's sugges- tions in the future water reports. Topock Marsh. A possible amendment to the decree to allow Havasu National Wild- life Refuge (Topock Marsh) to increase its 41