Laserfiche WebLink
<br />allocates its share in accordance with state law, while the Secretary administ rs <br /> <br />federal reclamation projects throughout the Upper Basin, as well as Glen Ca yon <br /> <br />Dam on the mainstream of the Colorado River at the dividing point between he <br /> <br />Upper and Lower basins for storage and delivery of water to which the Lower asm IS <br /> <br />entitled under the Colorado River Compact. <br /> <br />3. The Arizona. California and Nevada Apportionments <br /> <br />The BCP A had also given advance consent to a tri .state compact among <br /> <br />Arizona, California and Nevada with respect to Lower Basin waters, but it wa not <br /> <br />adopted by those states. Arizona did not ratify the Colorado River Compact u til <br /> <br />1944 and engaged in a continuing controversy with California over the Comp <br /> <br />interpretation and California's share of the Lower Basin apportionment. In 1 <br /> <br />finally filed an original action in the Supreme Court seeking an equitable <br /> <br />apportionment of the Lower Basin's Compact allocation. The Supreme Court's <br /> <br />decision in Arizona v. California, 373 US 546 (1963), held that the Compact a d the <br /> <br />doctrine of equitable apportionment were irrelevant to a determination of the <br /> <br />Arizona, California and Nevada shares because the BCPA had authorized the <br /> <br />Secretary to make a contractual interstate allocation of the Lower Colorado Ri er <br /> <br />mainstream consistent with the authorized but unconsummated tri .state comp <br /> <br />and he had done so. The Court also held that the Secretary was authorized to ake <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />23 <br />