Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Oil08H <br /> <br />1963 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA DECISION <br /> <br />Arizona finally ratified the 1922 Compact in 1944, <br />then pursued the authorization of the Central <br />Arizona Project <br /> <br />California resisted the CAP claiming Arizona did not <br />have sufficient water to support the pmject so in <br />1952 Arizona filed suit to resolve the water dispute. <br /> <br />In 1963, the Court held that by passing the BCP <br />Act, Congress had apportioned the Colorado River <br />mainstem water, 4.4 maf to California. 2.8 mat to <br />Arizona and .3 mat to Nevada. <br /> <br />Concluded that Arizona and Nevada had the <br />exclusive use of their tributaries and much more - <br />"#! 0#@!# * - Californiall" <br /> <br />..f <br /> <br />In his 1986 paper, Contrar View of the Law ot the <br />Colorado River, the late John Carlson concluded: <br /> <br />"By excluding the tributaries from the allocation, the <br />Court instantaneously vaporized most if not all of the <br />"surplus" water above Article III (a) 7.5 mat <br />apportionment" <br /> <br />"Besides vindicating Arizona, it expanded Federal <br />control over interstate water rights at the expense of <br />state authority and diminished the potency of <br />interstate compacts." <br /> <br />"The decision's disregard of Arizona's and Nevada's <br />tributaries in determining how to decide the waters of <br />the "Colorado River System" has aggravated, if not <br />generated, the current controversy over the. . . <br />Mexican Treaty obligations," <br /> <br />5 <br />