Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001436 <br /> <br />Green, Curecanti (newly renamed Wayne Aspinall) on the <br />Gunnison, and a dam at Navajo on the San Juan. In a compro- <br />mise with conservationists, a proposal to build a dam at Echo <br />Park on the Green was disapproved. The Act authorized the <br />initial phase of the Central utah Project. It established an <br />Upper Colorado River Basin Fund to which operating revenues <br />would be credited and provided a percentage formula to <br />distribute surplus money in the Fund to each Upper Basin <br />state. <br />F. Arizona v. California <br />Arizona grudgingly ratified the Compact in 1944 and then <br />sought congressional approval of the Central Arizona Project, <br />which envisioned the diversion of 1.2 m.a.f. of mainstream <br />water at -Lake Havasu to be used in the Phoenix and Tucson <br />areas. California stalled this enterprise by convincing <br />Congress that Arizona's rights to the water it sought to <br />divert were questionable. In 1952 Arizona brought a suit <br />under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to <br />resolve those~rights.27 <br />Contrary to California's contentions, the Supreme Court <br />rejected both the law of prior appropriation and the doctrine <br />of equitable apportionment as the basis for a decision. <br />Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963), held that by <br />passing the Boulder Canyon Project Act Congress had created a <br />means for a statutory apportionment of the mainstem water of <br />the Colorado River among California, Arizona, and Nevada. <br /> <br />-11- <br />