My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08613
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08613
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:48:56 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:07:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8040.950
Description
Section D General Studies - General Water Studies
Basin
Statewide
Date
1/1/1989
Author
John U. Carlson
Title
The Colorado River Compact - A Breeding Ground for International National and Interstate Controversies
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />occurred in the face of the express language of section <br />4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon Act which required that <br />California limit itself to 4.4 m. a. f. "of the waters <br />apportioned to the lower basin states by paragraph (a) <br />of Article III of the Colorado River Compact, plus not <br />more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters <br />unapportioned by said compact." Article III (a) of the <br />1922 Compact apportioned water from the "Colorado River <br />System" which is defined in Article II (a) as "that <br />portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries within <br />the United states." (Emphasis added). However, the <br />Supreme Court expressly stated that it was not deciding <br />any issue of interpretation of the 1922 compact, and that <br />the controversy was to be disposed of solely on the <br />theory that Congress had made a statutory apportionment <br />between the states of the Lower Basin: Arizona, <br />California, and Nevada. <br />2. Reasons for Inclusion <br />scrutiny of the Compact, the Boulder canyon <br />Act, and even Arizona's past conduct leads to the con- <br />clusion that the Lower Basin tributaries are to be <br />included in an Article III (a) determination of surplus. <br />First, however, before analyzing these factors, it must <br />also be noted that although the Supreme Court in Arizona <br /> <br />-19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.