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 />.." ..~ <br />" ":?:.1 <br /> <br />001883 <br /> <br />-12- <br /> <br />lIhen I lias first retained as a lawyer by the Colorado <br />River Commission of Arizona in 1933, I was requested to and did <br />uri te legal opinions on Arizona I s riGhts to vater of the main strem <br />of the, Colorado River and possible courses of action to secure thos! <br />rights, California had for the first time in the ne80tiations in <br />1929 and 1930 made the claim that the million acre-feet of <br />III(b) wa~er mentioned in the Colorado River Compact was unappor- <br />tioned by that Compact and ',ms :1ence ]Jart of the surplus that <br /> <br />could be used in California. <br /> <br />I <br />1!1fas requested for an opinion, and <br /> <br />gave it as my opinion that under the, Colorado River Compact and <br /> <br /> <br />the California Belf-Limltntion Statute, I'hich ha(l, been enacted <br /> <br /> <br />in 1929, California ~~as precluded from claiming any rights in <br /> <br /> <br />the million acre-feet of IIIeb) cTater by the terms of the Californi <br /> <br /> <br />Self _Limitation statute, because in my opinion the million acre- <br /> <br /> <br />feet of III(b) Hater "as apiJortil~Jned to the Lmli'er Basin, although <br /> <br /> <br />not specifically tv Arizona alone. It ;rill be remembered that <br /> <br /> <br />California had refused to carry out the underBtanding of the <br /> <br /> <br />original Compact Commissioners that a tri-state compact betlIeen <br /> <br /> <br />California, Nevnda, and A21izona lmuld lJrovide that the million <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet of III(b) \Tater lIas for the exclusive beneficial use <br /> <br /> <br />of Arizona in compensation for the inclusion of the Gil~ River <br /> <br /> <br />in the over-all definition of the Colorado River system, The <br /> <br />Colorado River COli1ois sian of Arizona, l1hile it agreed IIi th lilY <br /> <br /> <br />opinion, uanted, if )ossible, to have that point settled and <br /> <br /> <br />determined authoritatively by the Supreme Court of the United <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.