| OCR Text |
Show 138 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Colorado River for uses in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the same reason it could reserve such water for Indian Reservations and that the reservation of water was for "reasonable future requirements" without setting maximum limits thereon (Special Master's Report, pages 293 and 294). C.I5.4 Mexican Water Treaty The Special Master stated that pursuant to the Treaty of February 2, 1944, between the United States and Mexico, the United States is obligated to deliver 1.5 maf of mainstream water to Mexico and this has priority over other water rights in the Basin. If, in fulfilling this treaty obligation, the United States divests water rights, compensation may be due. In this connection, however, Article III(c) of the Compact, which deals with a prospective water treaty with Mexico and provides how water to satisfy it is to be provided, may be significant. C.15.5 Protection of Wildlife The Special Master concluded that the United States intended to reserve water from the mainstream for the reasonable future needs of the Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge in diversions of no more than 41,839 acre-feet per annum and the consumptive use of no more than 37,339 acre-feet per annum for the Havasu Refuge, and for the diversion of no more than 28,000 acre-feet per annum and the consumptive use of no more than 23,000 acre-feet per annum for the Imperial Refuge. He rejected claims for the Cibola Valley Waterfowl Management Area since lands have not yet been withdrawn for that purpose. The Special Master noted that consumptive uses of mainstream water by the United States on Federal establishments are chargeable to the State within which the use occurs. As a corollary he concluded that the United States uses in each State are limited by the apportionment to the State in which the uses occur. The United States projects must be fitted into a schedule of priorities along with other uses within a State, all utilizing the State's mainstream apportionment beginning with the senior priority. The reason therefor is that the Project Act apportions water to each State for the total uses within said State and that no separate provision was made for the uses of the United States (Special Master's Report, pages 300 and 301). C.15.6 Boulder City, Nevada The Special Master upheld the claim of the United States to the right to deliver water from Lake Mead to Boulder City for "domestic, industrial and municipal" purposes pursuant to the Boulder City Act of September 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1726; and that these deliveries are limited under that statute by the total amount of water available to Nevada under the Secretary's contractual apportionment. Boulder City's priorities are to be determined in the same manner as those of all other Nevada users under Nevada law, and its rights are subordinate to senior priorities under Nevada law. (Special Master's Report, pages 303 and 304; but see Supreme Court Opinion in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 589, footnote 94, where the Court stated that "...contrary to the Master's conclusion, Boulder City's priorities are not to be determined by Nevada law.") C.16 Mainstream Allocation The Special Master summarized the apportionment which controls the consumption of water for use in the three Lower Basin States under the decree recommended in the report (Special Master's Report, pages 305 and 306): "The Secretary of the Interior determines the total amount of water to be released from Lake Mead and from the several reservoirs on the mainstream of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam for consumptive use in Arizona, California, and Nevada. That determination is solely within the Secretary's reasoned discretion and presumably is based on the amount of water in Lake Mead and the reservoirs below, the amount necessary to satisfy the United States Treaty obligations to Mexico, necessities of 'river regulation, |
