Unfortunately, the Colorado River Compact overallocated the River in 1922. Fortunately, the Upper Basin allocated its portion to its members on a percentage basis in 1948. Unfortunately, the Lower Basin didn't do the same. Ergo: confusion and contention and hundred of millions of dollars spent on lawsuits. Hope this latest agreement works.

I wonder why it makes such a big deal of Lake Powell protecting upper-basin water rights, even though *nobody* in Utah uses Lake Powell water. Perhaps it is codespeak for the soon-to-be-built St. George pipeline.

1922: 7.5 maf to 3 lower basin state; 7.5 maf to 4 upper basin states
1928: CA: 4.4 maf, AZ: 2.8 maf, NV: 0.3 maf
1944: Mexico: 1.5 maf
1948: Upper 7.5 maf: CO (51.75%), NM (11.25%), UT (23%), WY (14%), plus AZ: 0.05 maf.
I don't see how the 1928 apportionment by acre feet or the 1944 apportionment of a set acre feet by percent makes a difference.
Major lawsuit (1948, settled by US Supreme Court in 1964) between CA and AZ was about whether Gila River development was part of AZ's apportionment and about impact of prior AZ development.

My understanding is that California has been overusing their water shares and Utah and Intermountain States have said, "Enough is enough." I hope it was fairly negotiated in Utah's interest and that CA's guzzling is put to a stop.

The Hoover and Glen Canyon dams don't protect water rights in the upper basin states. They protect water rights in the lower basin states. Flow at Lee's Ferry varies between 4 and 22 maf a year. By storing water, it allows a more uniform flow for the lower basin states.

"Nobody" in Utah, includes almost everybody in Uintah, Duchesne, Dagget, Grand, Emory, San Juan, and Wayne counties. They can and do take their share of water and Utah is protecting their rights to do so.

In response to MJFN�s 1017 am comment, it is my understanding that indeed the Boulder Canyon Proj Act of 1928 did allocate 4.4 to Calif and 2.8 to Ariz. However, under the 1929 California Limitation Act, Cal was given 4.4 + � of any excess water. Calif used this � provision to allocate to itself 5.1 under the 7 party agreement of 1931. Also, Calif claimed �prior appropriation� to justify to itself the excess water rights. It took the Ariz v Calif opinion in 1963 to put Calif in its place. It is also my understanding that Ariz had to subordinate its water rights to Calif to get its CAP project approved by Congress in 1968. Anyway, there has been a lot of infighting within the Lower Basin and (unfortunately) this has �spilled over� to cuts in the Upper Basin with the recent droughts. That is why I suggested that the percentage formula used by the Upper Basin may have proved wiser over the long run.

Lake Powell does protect Upper Basin states, including Utah. It provides the "bank account" of water that, in drought years, allows Utah to use its share of the Colorado River and still make required deliveries to the Lower Basin States. Without it, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming would be at risk if there wasn't enough water to meet the Lower Basin share. Those states could put a "call" on the river to get their shares, which would come at the expense of Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. Store the water in high snow pack years, release it in drought years to meet obligations to Arizona, California, and Nevada along with a portion of the United States obligation, per a treaty, with Mexico and their share of the river. It is not an issue of actually taking water from Lake Powell for a local use. Through the ongoing drought, all obligations have, in fact, been met because of Lake Powell storage. The 1922 Compact isn't perfect, but it and subsequent laws and agreements provides the framework to make yesterday's action possible.

All I care is that the reservoirs fill to capacity. They are much too low for drought conditions.

The suggestion that "nobody" in Utah uses Colorado River water has already been partially answered by Mike Johnson, but he did not mention Utah County and Salt Lake County. Utah County receives Colorado River water and Salt Lake County will when additional facilities are built.

Uh-oh!
Here come the water wars!