Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />develop faster, and could develop senior or preferred water rights <br />through their development. <br />The federal government struck fear into the hearts of all the <br />states in that case between Wyoming and Colorado. When that case was <br />reargued in 1918, the United States intervened and argued that the <br />United States not only had authority over all unappropriated waters <br />in navigable streams, but even over unnavigable streams throughout the <br />west. Federal agencies had already asserted authority over navigable <br />waters under the Commerce Clause, the War Powers Clause and the power <br />of the United States to undertake international treaties. This <br />assertion of pervasive federal authority created a major motivating <br />force behind the Compact that is similar to one of the driving forces <br />that Colorado faces today. There is a need for the states to work out <br />some of these solutions and allocations for themselves, rather than <br />have solutions imposed by the federal government. <br />Bolstered by government claims that there was plenty of water in <br />the River for all foreseeable uses, the interests in all the Basin <br />States finally formed a consensus, through a group called The League <br />of the Southwest, to form a development program. The League <br />functioned as a basin wide chamber of commerce. It was the lobbying <br />group that urged Congress to construct the All-American Canal and <br />Hoover Dam. In the face of this imminent development, the Upper Basin <br />became anxious over the potential rate of development in the Lower <br />Basin. Upper Basin interests were also concerned that the water <br />supply forecasts of the federal government were unreasonably <br />optimistic. These concerns led the Upper Basin to propose a Compact <br />which would allow for Upper Basin political support of this <br />development in the Lower Basin, and also provide for a perpetual <br />entitlement, or right of development, to the Upper Basin. <br />I think it is important to emphasize that the Compact does not <br />apportion water; it apportions the right to consumptively use water. <br />When we speak of Colorado's entitlement, it is not an ownership of <br />water per se, but it is, in the traditional water right sense, a right <br />to develop water for beneficial consumptive use. <br />Additionally, the Compact explicitly did not deal with the rights <br />of the Indian tribes. In fact, there is a provision that states that <br />the Compact does not affect the obligations of the United States to <br />Indian Tribes. <br />After the Compact was negotiated, there was discussion, debate, <br />and lobbying over who was going to finance these massive works <br />necessary to develop the Lower Basin. Possible candidates included <br />the federal government, irrigators, power customers, or private <br />entities. The states again worried about the imposition of federal <br />control if the Federal Power Commission got its hands on regulating <br />a private dam on the River. The debate elucidated the fact that the <br />construction and operation of any major facility on the River was too. <br />big, and the international and interstate issues were too complex, for <br />any entity, other than the federal government, to undertake. <br />The federal government did undertake this responsibility, in the <br />1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act. After the Compact, this is the first <br />document that would be included on a list of documents comprising the <br />Law of the River. The Act authorized the construction of Hoover Dam <br />and the All-American Canal. As the states would later see, when the <br />Supreme Court decided the case of Arizona v. California. the Act <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />11 <br />