My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12578
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12578
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:39 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 8:43:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Basin - Legislation-Law - Compacts - Colorado River Compact
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/1/1986
Author
John U Carlson - Alan E Boles Jr
Title
Contrary Views of the Law of the Colorado River - An Examination of Rivalries Between the Upper and Lower Basins - John U Carlson and Alan E Boles Jr - 07-01-86
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.
/
96
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 />,--! " , 3 .~ <br />uul't ;;;. <br /> <br />delivery of electricity to all sorts of users. <br /> <br />It also <br /> <br />approved the 1922 Compact and provided that the operation of <br />the Hoover Dam and other works authorized by the Act would be <br /> <br />sUbject to the Compact's terms. <br />All of the Basin states except Arizona had ratified the <br />Compact in 1923, although in the ensuing years some had <br /> <br />qualified or rescinded their ratifications. The Compact had <br />become a dominating political issue in Arizona.lS Populist <br /> <br />Governor George Hunt fulminated against it with spectacular <br /> <br />results. Arizonans were perturbed by the potential loss of <br /> <br />tax revenues caused by the likely preemption of proposed <br />private hydroelectric projects on the Colorado by a Federal <br />plant. They were appalled to find themselves suddenly pitted <br />almost alone against California for a share of Colorado River <br /> <br />water without the assistance of the Upper Basin states. They <br /> <br />were even more upset by the prospect of the Compact compel- <br /> <br />ling them in the future to relinquish water from the Gila <br /> <br />River to satisfy a Mexican treaty obligation16 or perhaps <br />even to irrigate land in California.'-' To Arizonans the Gila <br /> <br />had become a sacred river and its use by others a desecra- <br /> <br />tion. <br /> <br />The Upper Basin states preferred seven-state ratifica- <br /> <br />tion, but they had concluded that their interests would be <br />reasonably secure if California were to ratify the Compact <br /> <br />and also agree to a limit on its share of the Lower Basin's <br /> <br />Article III(a) apportionment. Consequently the Act also <br /> <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.