Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />nearly 25 million acre feet. Without this storage capacity, it is doubtful that the Upper Basin could <br />meet its obligations under Article ill of the 1922 Compact even at today's level of development. <br /> <br />Arizona v. California - A Fourth Time <br /> <br />After Arizona finally ratified the 1922 Compact in 1944, it turned its attention to the <br />authorization and construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). <br /> <br />Discussion of a large project that would bring mainstem Colorado River water into Arizona <br />began in the 1920s. George H. Maxwell first promoted a plan to bring water from the Parker area <br />to Maricopa County in 1922.105 The efforts were continued into the 1930s by Fred T. Coulter. <br />Coulter proposed a number of different projects, including one that utilized a dam at the current Glen <br />Canyon Dam site.106 Coulter, who was elected to the Arizona Senate for six terms, was a primary <br />force in Arizona's opposition to the 1922 Compact. He died the month before ratification by the <br />Arizona Legislature. 107 <br /> <br />Ratification of the 1922 Compact and completion of a water contract between Arizona and <br />the Secretary of the Interior for 2.8 maf of Colorado River water allowed Reclamation to begin <br />detailed investigations into the feasibility of the CAP.108 Within Arizona, there was also serious <br />consideration of a state-funded project.109 <br /> <br />HD 419 considered three basic CAP alternatives: a system of pumping plants and 235 miles <br />of canals from Lake Havasu (Parker Route); a dam in Marble Canyon Gust below Lee Ferry), a 143 <br />mile continuous tunnel that would convey water from Marble Canyon Dam into the Verde River, 95 <br />miles north of Phoenix (Marble Canyon Route); and a dam at Bridge Canyon (120 miles upstream <br />of Hoover Dam in the Grand Canyon National Park), a 78 mile tunnel from Bridge Canyon south <br />to the Big Sandy River then 235 miles of canals (Bridge Canyon Route). <br /> <br />In 1947 and 1948, both Senate and House committees held a series of hearings on Colorado <br />River matters. Those hearings highlighted the differences between California and Arizona over the <br />interpretation of both the 1922 Compact and the 1928 Act. Both the House and the Senate considered <br />resolutions instructing the United States Attorney General to initiate the litigation. Nevada and <br />California supported this approach while Arizona and the Upper Basin States opposed it."o The <br />resolutions failed. <br /> <br />105 Rich Johnson, "The Central Arizona Project 1918-1968," University of Arizona Press, 1977, page 15. <br /> <br />106 id. <br /> <br />107 id. <br /> <br />108 Johnson, page 20. <br /> <br />109 Johnson, page 24. <br /> <br />lIOSee testimony ofS.J. Resolution 145, Eightieth Congress, First Session and H.J.R. 226, 227 and 228, Eightieth Congress, First <br />Session. S.J. Resolution 145 was directing the Attorney General to initiate litigation in the Supreme Court to "determine interstate <br />water rights in the Colorado River." <br /> <br />Page -38- <br />