Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />III. Lower Basin Apportionment <br /> <br />• Resolved in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963); decree entered in Arizona v. <br />California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964). <br />• Divides "all the water in the mainstream below Lee Ferry." <br />• Apportionments of 4.4 MAF to California, 2.8 MAF to Arizona, and .3 MAF to Nevada. <br />• Surpluses and shortages to be decided by Secretary of the Interior. Surplus divided 50% to <br />California, 46% to Arizona, and 4% to Nevada. Division of shortages up to Secretary. <br />• Defines "consumptive use" as "means diversions from the stream less such return flow <br />thereto as is available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of the <br />Mexican Treaty obligation." <br />• Defines "present perfected rights" as a water right, existing as of June 25, 1929, "acquired in <br />accordance with state law, which right has been exercised by the actual diversion of a <br />specific quantity of water that has been applied to a defined area of land or to definite <br />municipal or industrial works, and in addition shall include water rights created by the <br />reservation of mainstream water for the use of federal establishments under federal law <br />whether or not the water has been applied to beneficial use." <br />• Leaves each state the use of its own tributaries, with the exception of apportionment of upper <br />Gila between New Mexico and Arizona. <br />• The Supreme Court based its decision on sections 4 and 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project <br />Act. The BCPA also makes clear that it is subject to, consistent with, or subsidiary to the <br />Colorado River Compact. The Arizona v. California court decree also provides that it does <br />not "affect any issue of interpretation of the Colorado River Compact." <br /> <br />IV. 1945 Treaty with Mexico on Water Utilization. Allots Mexico a "guaranteed annual <br />quantity" of 1.5 MAF. In a surplus, may be increased to 1.7 MAF; in an extraordinary <br />drought, may be reduced in the same proportion as uses within the U.S. are reduced. Does <br />not address how treaty burden is borne within U.S. <br /> <br />V. 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act and Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range <br />Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs. Primarily, the CRBPA authorized the Central <br />Arizona Project. The Upper Basin extracted protection for Lake Powell in section 602(a). <br />Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate operating criteria for <br />Colorado River reservoirs, and directed that "the criteria shall make provision for the <br />storage of water in storage units of the Colorado River storage project and releases of <br />water from Lake Powell in the following listed order of priority: <br /> <br />"(1) releases to supply one-half the deficiency described in article III(c) of the Colorado <br />River Compact, if any such deficiency exists and is chargeable to the States of the <br />Upper Division . . .; <br /> <br />(2) releases to comply with article III(d) of the Colorado River Compact, less such <br />quantities of water delivered into the Colorado River below Lee Ferry to the credit of <br />the States of the Upper Division from other sources; and <br /> <br />(3) storage of water not required for the releases specified in clauses (1) and (2) of this