Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O~~,ryo <br />U~~~J <br /> <br />alarmed by the potential effect of the Lower Basin's rapid <br /> <br />agricultural and municipal development upon their water use, <br /> <br />fearing they would be preempted by prior water rights <br /> <br />perfected by California and Arizona. <br /> <br />This anxiety was <br /> <br />intensified by the Supreme Court's decision in Wyominq <br /> <br />v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922), which applied the doctrine <br /> <br />of prior appropriation to apportion the right to use the <br /> <br />water of the Laramie River between Wyoming and Colorado. <br /> <br />It was clear that because of their enormous cost the <br /> <br />high darn and all-American canal project could only be <br /> <br />undertaken by the Federal Government. <br /> <br />It also became clear <br /> <br />that due to opposition from the electrical power industry10 <br /> <br />and misgivings in other quarters Congressional approval of <br /> <br />the project would depend upon the support, or at least <br /> <br />neutrality, of the other Basin states. <br /> <br />These states, <br /> <br />however, were determined to resist the project unless they <br /> <br />received satisfactory assurances of their future use of the <br /> <br />water of the River. <br /> <br />Each camp was amenable to accommoda- <br /> <br />tion. <br /> <br />In 1921 Congress authorized Federal participation in <br /> <br />the negotiation of a Compact, see 42 Stat. 171 (1921), and <br /> <br />each Basin state quickly appointed a commissioner. <br /> <br />They <br /> <br />convened in Washington in January, 1922, elected the United <br /> <br />states representative, then Secretary of Commerce Herbert <br /> <br />Hoover, as their chairman, and spent parts of the next eleven <br /> <br />months in devising a compact. <br /> <br />The Compact divided the entire Colorado River system, <br /> <br />-4- <br />