WSP07353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- ~<~~;~;~~~'it~~f~ -,' ".',,'::c:- " ..:;' ~ '.-. ; " ,- ~-- . The Agreement states: This agreement shall be interpreted so as to permit the water delivery and payment therefore and to be in conformity with all compacts. treaties, contracts, laws, judgments and decrees. In particular this agreement is not to be read as being violative of Article III (e) of the Compact of 1922 in that the Upper Basin is not withholding water from the Lower Basin. but rather providing storage space for water put to beneficial use. This statement is contradictory within itself since it is an interpretation of the Law of the River that is certain to be challenged. The above quote from the Agreement is apparently based on a dual theory that (a) storage of water alone in the Upper Basin is itself a beneficial use and therefore immunizes the storage from the prohibition against withholding water by the Upper Basin. and (b) that once held in storage the water is removed from the priorities and requirements of the Law of the River. We believe both parts of the theory are faulty. The prOhibition against withholding contained in Article III (e) is designed to protect the Lower Basin frDm loss of water which could be put to beneficial use in the Lower Basin but which is being arbitrarily withheld by the Upper Basin and not put tD beneficial use there. Furthermore, once water is released tD the Colorado River from storage. and particularly into the mainstream in the Lower Basin, it is fully subject to use and appropriation in accordance with the priorities established by the Law of the River. If this were not so, all the water stored in Lake Powell would be exempt from the Lower Basin priorities, 7.