8014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Introduction In the 17 western stated, division of the major interstate river basins into upper and lower basins has arisen naturally as a matter of topography, climate, hydrology, and economics -- and has been confirmed institutionally as a matter of law and politics. In turn, one of the salient attributes of the history of the development of the West's water resources has been nearly unabated political and legal conflict between the upper and lower basins within most, if not all, interstate river systems. Over the past 100 years, these conflicts have often been played out in the context of Congressional consideration of legislation which either ratified interstate compacts or authorized federal water resources development projects (i.e., authorized federal financing for the construction of storage reservoirs and water delivery systems, hydropower facilities, flood control features, and navigation improvements). The legislation which emerged from the Congressional arena was frequently proffered as the vehicle by which the "comprehensive" development of a basin's water and hydropower resources would be achieved to the mutual benefit of both the upper and lower portions of that basin. The legislative process being what it is, some degree of compromise and accommodation was usually in order -- the political and geographical fulcrum of which was the point of demarcation between the upper and lower basins in any given river drainage. Thus, federal water project authorizing legislation usually contained specific projects for both the upper and lower basins. Furthermore, such legislation was often premised, implicitly if not explicitly, on the expectation (at least in the eyes of upper basin interests) that construction of authorized projects would proceed more or less simultaneously in both basins so that the agreed upon development of each basin's water resources, and the attendant regional economic benefits, would be realized concurrently. Whatever the upper basins' expectations, the reality has been significantly different. In several instances, federal development of the water resources allocated, apportioned, or otherwise available to a lower basin state or states has proceeded largely as contemplated in the authorizing legislation. But the counterpart upper basin state or states have found the construction of a ' Section 3002 of the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-575, Title X~IX, 106 Stat. 4693), refers to the 19 western states, consisting of the 17 western continental states, Hawaii, and Alaska. This paper deals only with circumstances in the 17 western continental states, which are commonly referred to as the "reclamation states" because they are the beneficiaries of the original federal reclamation program. See the Act of June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, § 1, 32 Stat. 388, which applied to the western states other than Texas, with that original act being extended to Texas by the Acts of February 25, 1905, ch. 798, 33 Stat. 814 and June 12, 1906, ch. 3288, 34 Stat. 259 (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C.A. § 391(1986 & Supp. 1997)).