My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4100
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
4100
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:28 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 12:55:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
4100
Author
Gibert, S.
Title
Water Policy and Development of the Colorado River.
USFW Year
1973.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />simply that the river's average flow was to be divided equally <br />between two basins, the Upper and Lower, the boundary point <br />being Lee's Ferry, Arizona. (See map.) provisions were also <br />made for possible demands from Mexico that would be recognized <br />by th~ U.S. at some future date.(1,2,4,6,7) <br />The Colorado River Compact was signed by all of the Basin <br />States except Arizona in November of 1922. In that same year, <br />the Supreme Court ruled on an interstate case involving the <br />Lar~mie River running through Colorado and ~yoming. The court <br />upheld the western water doctrine of prior appropriation, but <br />at the same time, said that anyone was free to utilize the <br />excess flow even if it involved taking water out of the drain- <br />age basin. Well, that was just about all the encouragement <br />California needed and off to Congress she ~ent.(1,10) <br /> <br />The Boulder Dam Act <br /> <br />Congressional battlellnes (California versus Arizona) were <br />drawn up aild the fight ensued. Al though Arizona did succeed in <br />holding up proce2dings for six years, California's political <br />pull ~r~s too great and the Boulder Canyon Dam Act was passed in <br />1928. The act contained provision for building the dam, hydro- <br />electric plant, and ORlifornia's very own All-American canal <br />with a rider to make the Colorado River Compact legal with six <br />of the seveJ states' signatures. <br /> <br />Arizona had lost the first round but took her fight to the <br />Supreme Court where it chBlleng2d the constit~tionality of the <br />act. ~~izoila claimed that the U.S. gover~ment was violating <br /> <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.