preview

Minute 319 Research Paper

Better Essays

Minute 319: Historical precedent of water management

Water Resources
Alejandro Ruiz

Table of Contents
Introduction 1
I. The Colorado River and the Delta 4
1. The Colorado River Basin 4
2. Delta: Formal Recognition 5
II. Minute 319 6
1. Road to the 319 Minute 6
2. Minute 319 Lay Out 10
3. Importance of NGOs 15
III. Minute 319 Perception 17
1. Benefits of Minute 319 17
2. Negative Opinions about Minute 319 20
3. 319 World Wide Recognition 21
Conclusion 22

Abstract
Minute 319 is an amendment to the 1944 treaty between the United States and Mexico that regulates the Colorado River. The amendment was made possible thanks to the efforts of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Minute 319 was implemented as a humanitarian …show more content…

In 1935 the Hoover Dam was completed forming Lake Mead, providing flood control, reservoir storage, power generation and regulates the downstream flow to the Lower Basin States. [footnoteRef:20] In 1963, the Glen Canyon Dam was completed forming Lake Powell, providing the Upper Basin States with enough reserve capacity to allow them to meet their annual obligation of 7.5 Million Acre Feet (MAF) to the Lower Basin States, allowing the Lower Basin States to use the allocation.[footnoteRef:21] As a consequence of the construction of the Hoover Dam and the Glen Canyon Dam, the Colorado?s flow often evaporated in Mexican sands close to the Delta.[footnoteRef:22] Around the 1970s, the Cienega de Santa Clara had shrunken by 500 acres. Nevertheless, due to the following wet decades, the Cienega was resuscitated to about 10% of its original acreage in the 80?s and 90?s.[footnoteRef:23] Currently, the Cienega is a 40,000 acre wetland that exists due to the return flows from the Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District near Yuma, Arizona.[footnoteRef:24] This Cienega is the home of less than 100 members of the Cucapa tribe and is the habitat of several endangered fish and birds, including Desert Pupfish and Yuma Clapper Rail.[footnoteRef:25] [19: D.F. …show more content…

California, Arizona, and Nevada could not agree on the terms of their respective shares concerning allocation of the Lower Basin.[footnoteRef:37] As a consequence, Congress enacted the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, which outlined the amount of water that each of the states could actually use.[footnoteRef:38] In Arizona v. California, the Supreme Court confirmed the respective share apportionment established in the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act between the three Lower Basin States after California?s and Arizona?s disagreement on the allocation of the Lower Basin?s share of the water.[footnoteRef:39] [37: A. Dan Tarlock, supra note 1.] [38: Boulder Canyon Project Act, Pub. L. No. 642m 45 Stat. 1057 (1928), available at https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf] [39: Arizona v. California, 373 US 546 (1963), decree entered 376 US 340 (1964).]

The Upper Basin States agreed in 1948 to a second interstate compact establishing their respective shares of water.[footnoteRef:40] These compacts paved the legal basis for the construction of a number of large reservoirs (i.e. Lake Mead) on the Colorado River by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. [40: Upper Colorado River Compact, Pub. L. No. 81-37, 63 Stat. 31 (1949), available at

Get Access