My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07342
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07342
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:26:51 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:16:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
5/19/1997
Author
James S. Lochhead
Title
The Perspective of the State of Colorado in 1922 - Did We get What We Bargained For?
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 />Colorado River Compact Symposium <br />James S. Lochhead <br />Page 23 <br /> <br />Fortunately, the negotiators left some room in which to <br />work. They based their discussions on what they felt were <br />the reasonable water supply needs each basin -- 7.5 maf/yr. <br />-- and gave the Lower Basin an additional million acre-feet <br />to allow for Lower Basin tributary use. Thus, they took <br />considerable comfort in their view that they had not <br />allocated all the water in the river. They provided in <br />Article III (c) that Mexican Treaty delivery obligations <br />would be handled out of the surplus, and in Article III (fl <br />and (g) for a further apportionment of the surplus after <br />1963 if either basin reached its allocation. It can be said <br />that the Lower Basin has exceeded its total apportionment of <br />8.5 maf/yr., but it is not at all clear that there is a <br />surplus. <br /> <br />The Neqotiators Left Unanswered Questions of Interpretation <br /> <br />In addition to its 75 million acre foot delivery obligation, <br />the Upper Basin potentially faces the added burden of <br />contributing one-half of the 1.5 million acre foot Mexican. <br />Treaty obligation, and possibly the transit losses between <br />Lee Ferry and the Mexican border. The Compact provides that <br />obligations to Mexico will be met out of water surplus to <br />that allocated under Article III (a) and (b). If no surplus <br />exists, the Upper and Lower Basins are to share in any such <br />deficiency equally. Some argue that there is no such <br />surplus, and the upper Basin therefore bears the burden to <br />share in the delivery obligation. <br /> <br />The Upper Basin states assert that they are under no <br />obligation to contribute any water to Mexico. The chart on <br />the previous page shows Lower Basin mainstem uses of 9.3 <br />maf/yr. If Lower Basin tributary uses are added in, even <br />deducting for groundwater overdraft, total Lower Basin <br />consumptive use is currently on the order of 12.8 maf/yr., <br />far in excess of the 8.5 maf/yr. allocated to it. The Upper <br />Basin states argue this excess use eliminates any burden the <br />Upper Basin might otherwise have to bear toward Mexican <br />Treaty deliveries. Resolution of the question may depend on <br />how Lower Basin tributary use is accounted under the <br />Compact. <br /> <br />The question remains unresolved, at least until Upper Basin <br />uses begin to approach the total allocated to it. But how <br />much water is that? <br /> <br />If the Upper Basin has a firm obligation to let an average <br />of 7.5 million acre-feet go to the Lower Basin each year, <br />then its use is limited only to what is left in the river. <br />As noted above, the amount left depends upon hydrologic <br />cycles. Based on its hydrologic analysis and interpretation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.