1 / 9

Source: Bureau of Reclamation usbr/lc/hooverdam/workings/basinmap.htm

Source: Bureau of Reclamation http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/workings/basinmap.htm. Colorado River Compact. Divides River into two basins Art. III(a): UB and LB both are apportioned 7.5 maf Art. III(b): LB may increase use by 1 maf

paige
Download Presentation

Source: Bureau of Reclamation usbr/lc/hooverdam/workings/basinmap.htm

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Source: Bureau of Reclamation http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/workings/basinmap.htm

  2. Colorado River Compact Divides River into two basins • Art. III(a): UB and LB both are apportioned 7.5 maf • Art. III(b): LB may increase use by 1 maf • Art. III(d): UB must deliver 75 maf every ten years at Lee’s Ferry • Mexican share from surplus or burden shared between UB and LB.

  3. Arizona Refuses to Ratify • Still in the cage with California • Was the Gila River included in the water to be divided among the lower basin? I.e. did Art. III(b)’s reference to 1 maf refer to the tributaries or just water from the mainstem of the Colorado? • What was Mexico’s share?

  4. Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) • Authorizes All-American Canal and Boulder Dam • Valid if six states, including California, ratify Compact. • Valid if CA agrees to limit itself to 4.4 maf • Act pre-approved lower basin compact • CA= 4.4 maf plus ½ of any surplus • AZ 2.8 maf; NV 0.3 maf

  5. Arizona’s Fight Against the Compact and the BCPA • 1930 argues BCPA unconstitutional. • 1934 suit to perpetuate testimony on Compact meaning. • 1934 Arizona dispatches its National Guard unit to Parker Dam • 1935 suit to stop BuRec from building Parker Dam. • AZ wins but Congress authorizes dam. Congress gives AZ Wellton-Mohawk to make pill easier to swallow. • 1935 suit for judicial apportionment. • U.S. refuses to be party; Court declines case.

  6. Law of the River(1940’s Developments) • 1944 Mexican share resolved (1.5 maf) • 1944 Arizona finally ratifies Compact • AZ hopes ratification will lead to Central Arizona Project (CAP) • California objects • Congress wants resolution before authorizing CAP • 1948 Upper Basin Compact • w/ Arizona’s signing of compact and Mexican share resolved, path is cleared for Upper Basin • CO = 51.75%; UT = 23%; WY = 14%; NM = 11.25%; AZ = 50,000 AF.

  7. Law of the River (1950’s Developments) • 1952: Arizona files Arizona v. California • 1956: Colorado River Storage Project Act • Primary Purpose: Storage of water in a dam above Lee’s Ferry to meet obligation to deliver 75 maf every 10 years • Echo Park Dam defeated • Glen Canyon/Lake Powell approved • Other projects approved: • Blue Mesa on Gunnison • Navajo on San Juan • Flaming Gorge on Green • Central Utah Project

  8. Arizona v. California • Pre-approved compact in BCPA was a congressional apportionment. • CA = 4.4 maf; AZ = 2.8 maf; NV = 0.3 maf • AZ gets all of its tributaries • CA gets ½ of any surplus in mainsteam; AZ gets 46%; NV gets 4% • Secretary of Interior acting through BuRec becomes water master of LB. Secretary has discretion to decide on whether surplus exists and on allocation of shortage.

  9. Colorado River Basin Project Act (1968) • Finally authorizes CAP • CA gets first priority to its 4.4 maf. • UB gets five additional projects • Northwest transfer nixed by Senator Jackson • Grand Canyon dam proposal nixed; coal fired power plant included.

More Related