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 />" <br /> <br />5. The Colorado River storaae Proiect Act of <br />1956 <br />The Colorado River storage Project Act of <br />1956, 43 U.S.C. G 620 (1982), authorized the construction <br />and operation of several long-term carryover reservoir <br />storage units in the Upper Basin, including the initial <br />phase of the central Utah Project, which assist the Upper <br />Basin to make required deliveries of water to the Lower <br />Basin and also to maximize the consumptive use of its own <br />1922 Compact-apportioned water. This act also <br />established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund to which <br />operating revenues are credited and provided a percentage <br />formula to distribute surplus moneys to each Upper Basin <br />state. <br /> <br />6. Arizona v. California <br />In 1952 Arizona brought a suit under the <br />original jurisdiction of the United states Supreme Court <br />to determine, among other things, its right to divert 1.2 <br />m.a.f. of mainstream water at Lake Havasu for use in the <br />Phoenix and Tucson areas as a part of the Central Arizona <br />Project ("CAP"). Contrary to California's contentions, <br />the Court rejected both the law of prior appropriation <br />and the doctrine of equitable apportionment as a basis <br />for its decision and held that by passing the Boulder <br /> <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.