Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;; <br /> <br />and then back north into California to the Imperial Valley. When Congress passed the Boulder <br />Canyon Project Act of 1928 (1928 Act), it authorized the construction of Hoover Dam, which <br />provided both flood control protection and river regulation for the lower river. It also authorized the <br />construction of the All-American Canal, which now provides IID with water delivered through a <br />canal route which is on All-American ground. It provided for a Congressional apportionment of <br />mainstem water supplies among the three Lower Basin States and since the Arizona Legislature <br />refused ratification, the 1928 Act engineered a political path for a six-state ratification of the 1922 <br />Compact. <br /> <br />After World War II, the four Upper Basin States got together and negotiated the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin Compact with little difficulty or controversy. The Upper Colorado River <br />Basin States had strong motivation. They desired federal funding for water development in the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin. Congress was not willing to authorize projects and appropriate large <br />sums of money until the states had provided legal certainty for the water which would be utilized by <br />the authorized Upper Basin projects. In 1948, Congress, the four Upper Basin States, and Arizona <br />(which has Upper Basin lands that are tributary to the San Juan River) ratified the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin Compact (1948 Compact).4 In 1956, Congress passed the Colorado River Storage <br />Project Act (CRSP A), which authorized the construction of Lake Powell, Navajo Reservoir, Flaming <br />Gorge Reservoir and the Curecanti Unit (which has been renamed the Aspinall Unit) and provided <br />for the comprehensive development of the Upper Basin.s The primary purpose for the construction <br />of these large reservoirs is to provide carryover storage to allow the Upper Basin States to meet their <br />obligations at Lee Ferry under the 1922 Compact. <br /> <br />In 1952, Arizona filed its fourth lawsuit related to the Colorado River in the U.S. Supreme <br />Court. Arizona's goal was to provide certainty for the water supply for the proposed Central Arizona <br />Project (CAP). Because California held a different interpretation than Arizona on the water supply <br />available to the Lower Basin States under the 1922 Compact and 1928 Act, Congress was not willing <br />to authorize and fund the CAP. <br /> <br />In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case in favor of Arizona6 and in 1964 issued <br />its Arizona v. California decree7. Unfortunately, in 1968 Arizona had to give up some of its legal <br />certainty for the CAP. In return for its support for the CAP, California's powerful congressional <br />delegation required a provision in the 1968 Colorado River Basin Proj ect Act that makes California's <br />4.4 million acre feet normal year apportionment senior to the CAP and to the Las Vegas Valley <br />pipeline out of Lake Mead. <br /> <br />4 Stat. 31. (1948). The legislative history is found in House Report 270, Eighty-First Congress, First Session. <br /> <br />5Stat. 105. (1956). <br /> <br />6373 U.S. 757. (1963). <br /> <br />776 U.S. 340. (1964). <br /> <br />Page -3- <br />