9407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATES' PERSPECTIVES SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS MAY 1997 o Swing-Johnson bill, and his California friends think they can persuade Congress to pass a six-state pact for the development of the Colorado River, leaving Arizona out because it refused to sign the Santa Fe pact, or because she has declined to agree to an unfair distribution of water and power rights, they are due for a rude awakening. Even if a six-state compact should be ratified by Congress and be signed by the six states interested in the development of the Colorado, it probably would be held unconstitutional because it would attempt legislation over a river, a large portion of which is in this state, without the approval of Arizona." So Arizonans were quite sure of themselves that they could in fact stop the passage of the Swing- Johnson bill - and they did. But shortly thereafter in 1928, of course, the Boulder Canyon Project Act was passed in Congress. Now what was important about the passage of that act is that because Arizona refused to ratify the Compact, Congress, in an attempt to appease the Arizona delegation, placed the California limitation in that provision - the infamous limitation of utilization not to exceed 4.4 million acre-feet. That limitation in turn was looked at by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California and became a crucial point for the ultimate safety of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-feet and the cap that we now frequently discuss and remind our neighbors in California that it exists. On the one hand, the ratification looked like an opportunity to stop the Compact - it of course did occur, but I do not think the limitation would have been imposed if Arizona had ratified the Compact in its legislature back in the '20s. There is definitely a blessing, to some extent, in our somewhat disagree- able nature historically. I think today, we look back and probably say our positioning was right. Politically it made sense for us because it did result in the limitation, and the Supreme Court ultimately founded its decision upon that limitation. So it did help Arizona in very many respects. It also served to educate us on the impor- tance of water, and that has served us well as a state. Although historically Arizona has had a Republican and Democratic view to our position on the Com- pact, we have ultimately, I think, developed a non- partisan approach to water, and that too has served us well. We appreciate all of the history that leads into the Colorado River, we have learned a great deal from it, and I think it has become a very real part of our culture in Arizona. RICHARD BUNKER, VICE CHAIRMAN, COWRADO RIvER COMMISSION OF NEVADA In January of 1877, my family settled on the tributary of the Colorado River and founded the little town of Bunkerville which is on the Muddy River in southern Nevada. We farmed that country for 50 years. Thanks to the federal government and others, the family farm is currently under Lake Mead. And really because of that background, I look on the Colorado with great passion and with great concern. And contrary to the current perception that Nevada had little interest in the 1922 Compact, the Nevada commissioners saw significant economic opportunity for the state of Nevada and the construc- tion of a dam at Boulder Canyon. And our commis- sioners, we believe, having looked back at some of the history and some of their notes and letters and diaries of this particular time, were very significant in pushing the congressional legislation that eventually authorized the negotiations for the Compact. Our two commissioners: Gov. Emmett D. Boyle, a Democrat, was Nevada's governor for two terms, which ended in 1922. He had served as our state engineer and as a tax commissioner before becoming governor. Gov. Boyle persuaded the dean of the University of Nevada College of Engineering, Col. James G. Scrugham, to serve as the state engineer during his tenure as governor. Later, Mr. Scrugham became our governor and then a congressman and the United States senator. These are the two gentlemen that represented Nevada in the Compact negotiations. Nevada's historical interests in the Colorado River are tied to Boulder Dam - the 25 million acre-feet impounded behind it. The history of the engineering marvel of the first dam on the Colorado is also the history of how Nevada's political leaders came to become some of the strongest proponents for development of the Colorado River as a resource shared by so many of us. As early as 1909, a Nevadan named Henry Schmidt filed an application in both Nevada and Arizona with the federal government to develop a power plant at Boulder Canyon. By the next decade, several private power companies, southern California municipalities and the federal government were courting Nevada's support for competing proposals to construct the dam. In 1920, based upon the recom- mendation of Colonel Scrugham, Gov. Boyle appointed a Nevada Commission on Colorado River Development, "To stand guard over the actual and the potential rights of the state of Nevada in any of the benefits to come from development of this important interstate stream."