9407

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9407
• Author: Water Education Foundation.
• Title: 75th Anniversary Colorado River Compact Symposium Proceedings.
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

of itself given rhe controversy that has surrounded the
two states for many, many years.
As I looked at the newspaper articles that talked
about the controversy surrounding the Compact
discussions in the early '20s, Arizona was frequently
referred to as the "dog in the manger." We were the
bad guys. We were the guys that were the obstruc-
tionists, that were attempting to stop construction of
Hoover Dam because we were convinced rhat we
would lose our ability to utilize the Colorado River -
and really for good reason. We were the newest state
to the Union, the 48th state. We had just become a
state in 1912, and Arizona's first governor, Gov.
Hunt, was a key leader to have Arizona participate in
the Compact negotiations. Early on we were a big
supporter of the Compact discussions. We believed
that a seven-state compact would allocate Colorado
River water to each of the states and guarantee us the
ability to grow into our utilization of the Colorado
River.
We only had 400,000 people at the time. A very
sparsely populated state, but nevertheless, most of us
resided in central and southern Arizona, as we do
today. The prime industries were agriculture and
mining - huge water users - no doubt about it.
And the discussion turned very quickly as to how
we would get the Colorado River supply into the
central and southern parts of Arizona whete the soil
was very fertile, but Mother Nature was very stingy
about providing water. We began to discuss, even in
the '20s, the construction of the Central Arizona
Projecr. We looked at ways in which water could be
brought down from a spot just north of where
Hoover Dam is today through a gravity flow canal
into Phoenix and Tucson. And so early on, the
political leaders of the state understood that water
was key to our economic development and the
security of that supply was crucial to our economic
development.
But as the discussions evolved here at Santa Fe,
Arizona became very dissatisfied with what was
happening because [its leaders] understood that the
seven states would reach an agreement and that each
state would be allocated a part of the Colorado River.
But what happened, of course, was that the Colorado
was divided into the Upper Basin and the Lower
Basin. Arizona shared the same concerns that the
Upper Basin states did - that California was growing
very rapidly, that the farmers in Imperial Valley
would put that water to use very quickly, establish a
senior right to the water, and even though 95 percent
of this state's lands drained into the Colorado River
watershed, we were convinced that we would not be
able to appropriate that water supply because of
California's advanced growth.

As the discussions evolved and it became apparent
that we were going to have a split, if you will, in the
allocation between the Upper and Lower Basins,
Arizona became even more concerned that
California's utilization of the Colorado would affect
Arizona very directly, that the Upper Basin now had a
guaranteed right to water and the brunt of
California's growth would be borne by Arizona.
And so there was a swirling political controversy.
Gov. Hunt, who had been the governor when the
discussions first began about an interstate compact,
had been replaced by Gov. Campbell. In 1922, there
was an election, and now current Gov. Campbell was
being challenged once again by former Gov. Hunt.
Gov. Campbell was
a supporter of the
signing of the
Compact, but Gov.
Hunt campaigned
on the notion that
this was the end of
the future of
Arizona, that this
was not a good deal
for Arizona. While
Mr. Norviel did sign
the Compact in
November on behalf
of the state, by the
time he got back
home, there was a
great deal of controversy as to whether or not the
Compact was in fact a good idea for Arizona. And he
had to live with the burden of being the signatory on
that Compact for many, many years to come.
The political campaign swirled on and on, and
Gov. Hunt was once again re-elected. Arizona then
was faced with the issue of whether or not it would
ratify the Compact. As we all know, it chose not to.
The Arizona Legislature had a heated debate. It had
the lengthiest filibuster to date in 1924 - I believe it
was a 26-hour debate. The Compact ultimately was
defeated. When it became clear that Arizona would
not ratify the Compact, we then achieved that
ignominious title of being the "dog in the manger."
It was interesting - in one sense the political
leaders had a great deal of foresight to understand
that water was, of course, crucial to Arizona's
development, but they also misunderstood the value
of Arizona's refusal to tatify the Compact. If I might,
I will read a very brief newspaper quote I came across.
[An article] about the precursor to the Boulder
Canyon Project Act, the Swing-Johnson bill, which
was being debated in Congress. In the Tucson paper
it said, "If Representative Swing, co-author of the

When it became clear

STATES'
PERSPECTIVES

that Arizona would not

ratify the Compact, we
then achieved that

ignominious title of
being the "dog in the

manger."

- Rita Pearson

SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
MAY 1997

o