Laserfiche WebLink
<br />G0255~ <br /> <br />In summary, the water-supply problems of the Pacific Southwest <br />are not new problems; rather, they have existed since prehistoric <br />times. Ancient civilizations are known to have flourished in the <br />area before the time of Christ, only to fail and disappear through <br />their apparent inability to cope with the vagaries of the local <br />water supplies. Modern civilization, on the other hand, has man- <br />aged to grow and develop in the area by the application of engineer- <br />ing principles to the problem, and by virtue of having the vision <br />and foresight to apply these principles when needed. <br /> <br />Effect of the Opinion in Arizona v. California, et al. <br /> <br />Prior to 1951 the conflicting claims of the States of the <br />Lower Colorado River Basin impeded Congressional consideration of <br />legislation to authorize construction of projects to divert Colorado <br />River water in the Lower Basin. On April 18, 1951, the Committee <br />on Interior and Insular Affairs of the HOllie of Representatives <br />adopted a resolution that bills relating to the proposed Central <br />Arizona Project "be postponed until such time as use of the water <br />in the Lower Colorado River Basin is either adjudicated or binding <br />or mutual agreement as to the use of the water is reached by the <br />States of the Lower Colorado River Basin.1I <br /> <br />In August 1952, Arizona filed an original action against <br />California and certain of its political subdivisions in the <br />United States Supreme Court seeking a judicial determination of <br />their relative rights to Colorado River water. 1he State of <br />Nevada and the United States intervened and the States of New <br />Mexico and Utah were impleaded as parties. The Court appointed <br />a Master who heard the case, made findings and conclusions, and <br />submitted a Report and Recommended Decree to the Court. On <br />June 3, 1963, the Court announced its opinion in the case of <br />Arizona v. California. et al. This opinion, which is to be <br />followed by a formal decree, appears to clear the way for the <br />development of a comprehensive plan to meet the present and future <br />needs of this fastest growing region in the Nation. Though <br />California has been permitted by the Court to file a petition for <br />rehearing and though a decree is yet to be formulated, for the <br />purposes of this report it is assumed that the Court's opinion <br />delineates the rights of the States and the United States to take <br />water for existing and new uses. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />The Court said that the Boulder Canyon Project Act (43 U.S.C. <br />617, et seq.) embodies a comprehensive scheme for apportioning <br />among California, Arizona,and Nevada the mainstream waters of the <br />Lower Colorado River. Under the comprehensive scheme, the first <br />7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water is apportioned, 4,400,000 <br />acre-feet to California, 2,800,000 acre-feet to Arizona, and <br /> <br />11-5 <br />