Home Page
News & Information
River Basin Plans
Basin Advisory Groups
Planning Products
|
The Colorado River Basin Project Act
- Public Law 90-537
This Act was signed September 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 885, and
was the result of many years of
negotiation and compromise between California, the other
Colorado River Basin States, the
Columbia River Basin States, the Federal Government, and
conservation groups and others.
Immediately after the Supreme Court Opinion in Arizona v.
California on June 3, 1963, and even
before the Decree issued March 9, 1964, the Senate
Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of
the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs met to
consider S.1658, introduced by Senators
Hayden and Goldwater of Arizona on June 4, 1963, to
authorize the Central Arizona Project (CAP).
Arizona's need for the project was based on the claim that
Arizona's economy was threatened unless
additional water was available to it and that ground-water
pumping of 3.5 maf far exceeded the
annual recharge of 1.0 maf.
The hearings proceeded over the protests of California's
Senator Kuchel that Interior had not yet
reported on the pending legislation as required by law and
that Secretary Udall had just completed
his Basin-wide proposal, the Pacific Southwest Water Plan,
of which CAP was a part. California also
was seeking a rehearing in Arizona v. California. Senator
Kuchel also stressed the need to give
existing California water uses a priority over CAP similar
to that recognized by Arizona for existing
Arizona water uses, and the need for augmenting the river.
Several different versions of legislation were considered
over the next several Congresses, ranging
from a bare bones CAP, a Lower Colorado River Basin
Project, to a Basin-wide project. The various
versions revolved around inclusion of Bridge Canyon and
Marble Canyon Dams as a source of
power to pump CAP water and to aid CAP financially, both of
which were strenuously opposed by
environmental groups, the adequacy of the water supplies
and its availability for additional projects,
and the need for the extent of (2.5 to 8 maf augmentation
of the river which was opposed by the
Columbia River Basin States because this Basin was a
possible source of augmentation.. In addition,
the question of a priority for California's 4.4 maf and the
length of such priority were key issues. It
was suggested that such a priority would give California
the victory it was denied in Arizona v.
California.
In the back of the debates were studies by Arizona of the
possibility that Arizona would finance and
build CAP with its own funds - a "go it alone" concept that
had enormous potential impacts on all
future Reclamation projects. Other Upper and Lower Basin
differences revolved around the rate of
development in the Upper Basin, the use of Upper Colorado
River Basin Fund revenues to purchase
power to meet Hoover Power Plant deficiencies, the
continuation of the Filling Criteria, the inclusion
of Gila River flows as part of the water supply available
to satisfy the Mexican Water Treaty, and
whether the Mexican Treaty burden should be made a national
obligation, and the Upper Basin's
desire to protect their water supplies for later use
against the temporary use in the Lower Basin.
It required that, in the storage and release of water and
in the operation of Federal reservoirs, the
Secretary and Federal officials comply with the Colorado
River Compact, the Upper Colorado River
Basin Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Boulder
Canyon Project Adjustment Act, the
Mexican Water Treaty, the Decree of the Supreme Court in
Arizona v. California, and the Colorado
River Storage Project Act. In the event of failure to so
comply any affected State may sue, and
consent was given to the joinder of the United States as a
party. The Secretary is directed to report
to the President, the Congress, and to the Basin States on
the annual consumptive uses and losses of
water from the Colorado River System after each successive
5-year period. All contracts for the
delivery of water from Federal reservoirs are conditioned
upon the availability of water under the
Colorado River Compact (Section 601).
It directed the Secretary to propose criteria for the
coordinated long-range operations of Federal
reservoirs, and provided that the criteria make provisions
for the storage of water in storage units of
the Colorado River Storage Project and releases of water
from Lake Powell in a stated order of
priority: (1) the Treaty obligation to Mexico, chargeable
to the States of the Upper Division, if any
exists; (2) the Upper Basin guarantee of 75 maf every 10
years to the Lower Basin; and (3) carryover
storage to meet these obligations were to be given
preference. Parity in storage between Lake Mead
and Lake Powell was also provided. Following the adoption
of the criteria, the Secretary is to report
on the actual operation for the preceding compact water
year and the project operation for the
current year (Section 602).
The criteria were adopted by the Secretary on June 8, 1970
(discussed immediately below).
It reaffirmed the rights of the Upper Basin to the
consumptive use of water from the Colorado River
System available to that Basin under the Compact and
provided that such rights shall not be reduced
or prejudiced by any use of such water in the Lower Basin.
Further that the Act shall not be
construed to impair the duties and powers of the Upper
Colorado River Commission (Section 603).
It also defined terms such as "active storage" and
"augmentation" (Section 606).
|