Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Supreme Court cases. The first was Kansas v. Colorado52 in 1907 and then Wyoming v. Colorado53 <br />in 1922. But even before Wyoming v. Colorado was decided, Carpenter feared that if the Lower <br />Basin States (Arizona and California) were to use additional water as the result of projects built by <br />the Reclamation Service, these states would claim a legal priority requiring delivery of a certain <br />quantity of water. Without a compact to protect their ability to develop at a pace consistent with their <br />own needs, the Upper Basin could grow only at the mercy of the Lower Basin.54 <br /> <br />A compact would "prevent a free-for-all race to see who develops the fastest because it <br />would assure each participant state that its rights were permanently protected no matter how long <br />it might take to get its economic engines running."55 Further, a compact would "avoid costly <br />litigation, assure the supremacy of equitable apportionment instead of prior appropriation across state <br />lines, eliminate future embargoes by the Reclamation Service, and settle title to water rights on the <br />rivers before the construction of dams and reservoirs.,,56 <br /> <br />It was not just the development of irrigation projects that concerned Carpenter. He also feared <br />the development of large hydroelectric power dams on the lower river without an agreement <br />protecting future upper river supplies.57 <br /> <br />Thus, in 1919, 1920 and again in 1922 when federal legislation was introduced for federal <br />assistance to build an "All American" canal and dam on the lower river, Congressional <br />representatives from the upper basin were opposed absent an interstate agreement protecting their <br />states' future water use.58 <br /> <br />On August 19, 1921, Congress gave its approval to an interstate compact and authorized <br />federal participation in the negotiation of the compact.59 Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of <br />Commerce, was named to represent the United States and serve as the compact commission <br />chairman. <br /> <br />Again a great deal has been written about the details of the compact negotiations and the <br />compromises that led to a successful agreement. I would suggest Norris Hundley Jr., "Water and the <br /> <br />52Kansasv. Colorado, 206, U.S. 46,117 (1907). <br /> <br />53 Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922). <br /> <br />54 Tyler, page 237. <br /> <br />55 id. <br /> <br />56 Tyler, page 238. <br /> <br />57 Tyler, page 241. House Document 419 notes that there was a desire throughout the Basin to give irrigation a preference right over <br />hydroelectric power; page 60. <br /> <br />58 House Document 419, page 60. <br /> <br />59 42 Stat.l71. (1921). <br /> <br />Page -19- <br />