Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to agree would be losing the use of the water that would be <br /> <br />assigned to the Authority. There have been no amendments to the <br /> <br />compact since its signing in 1922. <br /> <br />Also, the questiDn is presented as to hDW to share the <br /> <br />United States-Mexico Treaty burden. The Upper Basin Compact has <br />a provision for allocating shortages which would presumably be <br /> <br />invoked if its uses had to be reduced to meet the Upper Basin's <br /> <br />share of the Treaty obligation. The effect of this on the water <br /> <br />delivery obligations of the Agreement is not spelled out and <br /> <br />would need to be addressed in the final agreement or by an <br /> <br />amendment to the Upper Basin Compact or by anDther interstate <br /> <br />agreement. <br /> <br />C. Upper Colorado River Basi: Compact <br /> <br />In 1948, the states located in the Upper Basin <br /> <br />(Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico. Utah and Wyoming) entered into a <br /> <br />compact which was approved by Congress in 1949. It apportioned <br /> <br />between those states the 7.500.000 acre-feet of water per year <br /> <br />apportioned to the Upper Basin for beneficial consumptive use <br /> <br />pursuant to the Colorado River Compact. Arizona was given the <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />\ <br /> <br />right to 50.000 acre-feet per year. The other states were each <br /> <br />given a fixed percentage. with Colorado's being 51.75 percent. <br /> <br />The Agreement presents two fundamental issues that must <br /> <br />be tCdressed. The Agreement provides that the water to be <br /> <br />delivered to the Authority shall be taken from the entitlement <br /> <br />of the Upper Basin states. This might require either an <br /> <br />9. <br />