Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact <br /> <br /> <br />Page 4 of 15 <br /> <br />average flow of about 13.5 maf. Also, flows are highly erratic, ranging from 4.4 mafl <br />over 22 maf. <br /> <br />Built into the compact then, between what it promised and what the river was prepare <br />to deliver, was water scarcity. There is not enough water to go around. As a result, We <br />scarcity is the root of most of the disputes and problems subsequently arising over the <br />compact and the Law of the River. It is a situation that links past and present Colorad <br />River issues and will be an abiding concern in the future. <br /> <br />When further examining the history of the compact and especially Arizona's role in it <br />water scarcity is seen as a driving force behind many developments. An historical <br />review also shows how subsequent events affected the compact in ways that violated <br />political ideals of its framers. Arizona, in seeking to protect its Colorado River intere~ <br />was a key player in some of these undermining events. <br /> <br />Arizona Stands Firm <br /> <br />In reviewing the give and take of compact negotiators, one figure stands out as <br />especially obstretuous and contrary, W. S. Norviel of Arizona. His insistence that the <br />Lower Basin states receive all the water oftheir tributaries, plus half the river's flow a <br />Lee's Ferry, almost wrecked the negotiations. The extra one mafthat was allowed to t <br />Lower Basin states was to placate Norviel, in a battle over whether tributary flow WOl <br />be counted as part of a state's Colorado River allocation. <br /> <br />(Although Norviel's feistiness complicated and prolonged the proceedings, he was <br />viewed as an effective fighter for his state's cause. Herbert Hoover, the federal chainr <br />of the commission, described Norviel as "the best fighter on the Commission" and tol <br />him, "Arizona should erect a monument to you and entitle it 'One million acre feet.' ": <br /> <br />Even after the signing ofthe compact, Arizona played a divisive role, still acting "the <br />dog in the manger," as described by Rita Pearson, director of the Arizona Department <br />Water Resources, at the recent conference. Within five months of the signing all state <br />except Arizona ratified the compact. Arizona's Governor Hunt faulted the compact fo <br />not allocating water directly to the states, instead of to the basins. As per the compact <br />the law of prior appropriations would not apply between the basins, but if enforced <br />within basins, Arizona would be competing with rapidly growing California. <br /> <br />The proposed Boulder Canyon project, which included construction of the AII-Ameri, <br />Canal and a high dam on the lower river, intensified animosity between Arizona and <br />California. The project increased California's access to the Colorado River, to Arizon; <br />distinct disadvantage. The bill approving the project passed despite Arizona's objectic <br />Arizona then turned to the courts in an effort to get satisfaction, but without success. <br /> <br />In the early 1940s, Arizona began to reassess its strategy. To effectively use its Color; <br />River apportionment, the water would need to be delivered to the growing population <br />the south-central part of the state. State leaders realized that support for such a <br />reclamation project would be contingent upon Arizona's ratification of the compact. C <br />February 3, 1944, Arizona unconditionally ratified the compact, 22 years after it was <br />negotiated. Negotiations for a Central Arizona Project commenced. <br /> <br />http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATERlarroyo/101comm.html <br /> <br />9/1212006 <br />