My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10077
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10077
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:57:12 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:06:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Compact
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1948
Author
Charles A Carson
Title
Statement of Charles A Carson - Chief Counsel of Arizona Interstate Streams Commission re Colorado River Compact issues
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.
/
47
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 />OD1881 <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br />to contract for the storaGe of uater in Lake Mead and for the <br />delivery thereof to such points on the River as nay be agreed <br /> <br />upon. <br /> <br />in 18'29 ['.nd 1930 further attempts uere i.Jade to neGotia~e <br /> <br />a cOh1pact betHeen Arizona, California, ane~ Nevada, but failed. <br /> <br /> <br />It is ~y understanding, althou~h I did not participate in those <br /> <br />negotiations nne1 have no persol1::,l l:nQ1.~ledce thereof, that the <br /> <br /> <br />onl"' c:1.&i.,1 there 2.8serted, o.ne1 l:l1ich is here asserted by California <br /> <br /> <br />contrary to t!1e Arizona }JOE:i tion, Has that the Dillion acre-feet <br /> <br /> <br />mentioned in Article III(b) of the Colorado River Compact ~las <br /> <br />vas unap~)ortionee1 or surplus ,.rater. Another interesting fact in <br /> <br />connection 1,;i th the case thc'.t Has filed by Arizom~ attackine; the <br /> <br /> <br />constitutionc~lit:r of the BoulC.er Canyon Project .Act, 283 U. S. 423, <br /> <br />is that not"ithst1:.nCinG the fc.ct that Arizona at that time was <br /> <br />disputing the consti tution.:lli ty of the Act and opposed ap;)ro"riatior <br />for the construction of Hoover Dam, and that California, Arizona, <br />and Neva~a had been unable to agree to the terms of the tri-state <br />co~pact as set out in the Boulcer Canyon Project Act, and not- <br /> <br />u1thstaneUng the fact that Arizona had filed the suit attacking <br />the constitutionality of the Act and California's riGht to the <br />water set out in the Act, the Cc.lifornia agencies proceeded to <br />negotiate the California Intrastate Priorities Agree8ent and <br />nee;otiated contrqcts ':ith the Secretar~' of the Interior, I.Ir. \lilbur, <br />uith his assistant, llorthcutt Ely ( l1ho no1' represents California <br />int erests), '.Ii thout '.'8oi t1nCi for the. decision of' the Court in that <br /> <br />case, ctnd moved to Gismiss the case. <br /> <br />:~ <br />'.~ <br />'i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.