OCR Text |
Show basin* the average »nnn»i aaount of III(a) water available to each beein will be around 6,900,000 acre-feet instead of 7,500,000 acre-feet. Under this interpretation, it seems reasonable to assume th t surplus water would be used to meet the upper basin obligation (ill(d) of the Compact) to deliver 75,000,000 acre-feet in consecutive 10-yetr periods at Lee Ferry. On this basis, the average mnnni surplus water would be as follows I Virgin flow at Boundary...........17,751,000 A.F. Salvaged channel losses ........... 1.250.000 A.F. Total water available (say) ..... 19,000,000 A.F. Allocationsi Upper Basin III(a) 6,900,000 Lower Basin III(a) 6,900,000 Lower Basin III(b) 1,000,000 Lower Basin III(d) 600,000 Mexico under Treaty 1.500.000 16.900.000 A.F. Surplus water 2,100,000 A.F. Equitable distribution of the surplus among various interests will be difficult. Assuming a 50/50 split between the upper basin and the lower basin, and the lower basin portion divided in the manner described in pTagraph 9, Arizona1 e share would be 483,000 acre-feet. Subtracting from Arizona's share tne 4.70,000 acre-feet of salvaged •Gila Rlver-Ch-janel losses," would leave only 13,000 aere-feet of surplus water from the main stem. If we should assume that the salvaged "Glla Channel loss" of ,470,000 acre-feet be subtracted from the surplus and given exclusively to Arizona, before the remainder of the surplus (1,630,000 acre-feet) is divided, the amount of the Arizona eurplus from the main stem of the Colorado River would sversge about 375,000 acre-feet per year. In summary, average surplus water divertible to Arizona under the February 9, 1944> contract might be said to range from 13,000 to 375,000 acre-feet annually. Reservoir losses 12. The present and future reservoir losses on the aain stem of tne Colorado River are shown on page 24.3 of the draft of the Colorado River Report to be 870,000 acre-feet annually. Article 7(d) of the Arizona contract provides, "Such obligation shall be subject to such reduction on account of evaporation, reservoir and river losses, at msy be required to render this contract in conformity with Bald Compact and s^id Act." The present thinking among the Colorado River Basin sttes is th t reservoir losses should bt considered as part of the beneficial consumptive use. The exact amount to be proportioned to Arizona is not known, but one basis might be to cns-rge her the fraction of the amount of her firm contract in proportion to the |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |