Wyoming State Water Plan, Wyoming Water Development Office
Rafting on Snake River Lake Marie, Snowy Mountains Wyoming Wind River Range picture

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).