Compacts, Decrees, and Treaties Affecting CO's Water

Home Browse Search

definition of the 7,500,000 acre-feet of water apnortioned to the lower basin as defined by the Supreme Court via the Boulder Canyon Pro3ect Act. This definition is wholly inconsistent with the plain terms of the Colorado River Comgact. It is a very neat triclc to say that Article III(a) of the Compact has one meaning for the lower basin and another meaning for the u-pper basin. But it has been said. As regards the upper basin, however, it must be pointed out that the Supreme Court was quite careful in stating that the case before it involved only an apportionment of waters among the lower basi.n states. The Court did not attempt to define or ascertain ". any obligation of the uPper basin states with respect to either the delivery of water to the lower basin or to the Republic of Mexico. The litigation lasted approximately ten years. Buoyed by its apparent victory, Arizona renewed its efforts in the United States Congress to secure authorization of the Central Arizona Project. 7. Colorado River Basin Proiect Act The latest chapter in the long struggle over the waters ot the Colorado River began after the decision in the Arizona vs. California case. Tlhile the decision was greeted witT great enthu- siasm in Arizona, there was considerably less enthusiasm in the other six basin states. Immediately after the decision was announced, Arizona again introduced legislation in Congress to authorize the Central Arizona Project, riuch to Arizona's dismay, it quickly became apparent that such legislation would not pass without the support of the other basin states. negotiations among the seven states then started in an attempt to resolve the many issues. Representatives of the water resource agencies of the various states were-the principal negotiators and conducted numerous meetings at various locations in an attempt to arrive at some compromise legislation. The Upper Division states feared that authorization of the Central Arizona Project would impede further water resource develop- ment in the Unper Basin. This fear was based on the fact that a full water supply for the Central Arizona Project could not ma.te- rialize without using waters allocated to the Upper Division. California, smarting from its defeat in the court case, opposed the legislation for the reason that it would reduce the amount of water whf.ch California had previously been diverting. '7'he climate for the negotiations was not good and the meetings among the negotiators were often stormy. Lventually, however, it became apparent that future water resource development in each of the seven states would be seriously jeopardized if such accammoda.tion were not reached. An accommodation was reached and resulted in the passage of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, which was approved by the President on September 30, 1968. Some of the principal provisions of that-' act are as follows: -17-