| OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX J 299 merit water contracts (aggregating, in Arizona, California and Nevada, about 8,500,000 acre-feet), the Mexican Water Treaty (1,500,000 acre-feet more), plus water to supply Indian "diversion rights" (not the same as "consumptive uses") of over 1,700,000 acre-feet in the Lower Basin. (In the whole Basin, there would probably exceed 3,000,000.) The United States denies that all its rights are subject to the Colorado River Compact, and leaves in a high degree of suspense the question of whether the Indian claims are inside or outside of the Compact apportionments. If inside, and as large as claimed, the Compact is splitting at the seams, and if outside, busted. The Legal Issues Basin versus basin, the principal issues are twofold: first, how much water the Upper Basin is entitled to use; second, what water the Lower Division is entitled to receive from the Upper. The Reclamation Bureau has planned the Colorado River Storage Project on basic assumptions which California chal- lenges: MEANING OF "PER ANNUM" 1. That the Upper Basin's apportionment of 7,500,000 acre-feet "per annum" means an average of that quantity, so that it may claim 9,000,000 of apportioned water in one year if it uses 6,000,000 in another. We say that "acre feet per annum" means the same as "miles per hour" in a speed limit, and that in any year in which the Upper Basin uses more than 7,500,000 acre-feet, it is using water which has long since been appropriated in the Lower Basin. This encroachment amounts to 2,000,000 acre-feet in some years, and 500,000 acre-feet on a thirty-five year average. California's uses are required by our government water contracts to be measured as we ask the Upper Basin's uses to be measured. MEASURING USES 2. That the Upper Basin's consumptive uses are to be measured by their effect on depletion of the flow of the main stream at Lee's Ferry. We deny this and say that the method |
