Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. The waters of the Gila River and its tributaries, except return flows to the Colorado <br />River, would not be used to satisfy a treaty obligation to Mexico. <br /> <br />. None of the three states could withhold water or require the delivery of water which <br />cannot be reasonably applied to domestic and irrigation uses. <br /> <br />. Provisions of any agreement would be subject to the Colorado River Compact and <br />would take effect upon ratification by Arizona, California and Nevada. <br /> <br />The 1928 Act, itself included provisions that it would not become effective until either: 1. <br />All seven states ratified the Colorado River Compact or, 2. Six states ratified the Colorado River <br />Compact, including California, and California enacts legislation limiting itself to not exceed <br />4,400,000 acre feet of water available under paragraph III (a) of the Colorado River Compact plus <br />not more than one half of any excess or surplus water unapportioned by said compact. <br /> <br />Finally, the 1928 Act directed the Secretary to make investigations and public reports of the <br />feasibility ofprojects in the seven states and to formulate a comprehensive scheme for control and <br />the improvement and utilization of the waters of the river. <br /> <br />On March 4, 1929 the California Legislature enacted the California Limitation Act as <br />contemplated by the 1928 Act. Then, on June 25, 1929 President Hoover promulgated Public <br />Proclamation Number 1882. This proclamation declared that "All prescribed conditions having been <br />fulfilled, the said Boulder Canyon Project Act approved December 21, 1928, is hereby declared to <br />be effective this date.'m <br /> <br />Thus, eight years after Congress had authorized the negotation of an interstate compact, a <br />compact was effective and the fIrst essential elements of the Law of the River were in place. The <br />1922 Compact and 1928 Act opened the door to a new era in the development of the river. History <br />would also show that inconsistencies between the two and flawed assumptions conc~rning the basis <br />of the river hydrology would lead to many future political and legal battles. Fundamental <br />disagreements over specific provisions ofthe 1922 Compact and 1928 Act remain unresolved today. <br /> <br />72 46 Stat. 3000. (1929). <br /> <br />Page -25- <br />