Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Seventy years later, the 1931 agreement provisions led to the need for then Secretary Norton <br />to force California entities to negotiate a quantification settlement agreement, allocating the 3.85 maf <br />of agricultural water under priorities 1 through 3b. among the irrigation parties. <br /> <br />Arizona v. California - The First Three <br /> <br />Although Arizona was out muscled by the other six states through congressional action, it <br />continued to oppose both implementation of the 1928 Act and the 1922 Compact. <br /> <br />In 1930, Arizona filed suit in the Supreme Court to have the 1928 Act declared <br />unconstitutional. 82 Arizona argued that inclusion of the Gila River in the definition of the Colorado <br />River System (Article II a) of the compact reduced by 3,000,000 af, the amount of water that could <br />be appropriated for use in Arizona. 83 <br /> <br />The Supreme Court ruled against Arizona. It concluded the 1928 Act was a valid exercise <br />of Congressional authority. <br /> <br />In 1934, Arizona again filed suit in the Supreme COurt.84 This time Arizona's objective was <br />to obtain testimony from the 1922 compact negotiators so it could be preserved for future litigation. <br />Again, Arizona's goal was to use the testimony of the negotiators to substantiate a future claim that <br />the intent of Article III (b) of the 1922 Compact was to apportion the Gila River for the exclusive <br />use by Arizona.85 The Supreme Court denied Arizona the right to file the suit. <br /> <br />In 1935 Arizona tried again.86 This time Arizona sought an equitable apportionment suit <br />against the other six Basin States. This attempt was again denied because the Court found that <br />Arizona could not join the United States. 87 <br /> <br />After much internal debate and the death of a key opponent, on February 24, 1944 the <br />Arizona Legislature ratified the 1922 Compact with a simple proclamation:88 <br /> <br />82 Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423. <br /> <br />83 Hundley, page 289. <br /> <br />84 Arizona v. California, 292, U.S. 341. <br /> <br />85 Jean S. Breitenstein, Attorney for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Memorandum on the Colorado River, August 3, 1947. <br />In footnote #73, Mr. Breitenstein notes that in Congressional testimony on S. 1175, Eightieth Congress, first session, Royce Tipton <br />and Clifford Stone, on behalf of Colorado, agreed with Arizona's position on Article III (b). <br /> <br />86 Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558. <br /> <br />87 Carlson and Boles, page 34. <br /> <br />88 Laws of Arizona 1944, pages 427-428. <br /> <br />Page -29- <br />