9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

provision in the Treaty that shortages will be shared by the United States and Mexico in the event of an extraordinary drought, or serious accident to the irrigation system of the United States. However, given our international relations with Mexico, I am not sure that we can find any comfort in that provision. In 1948, following the treaty and three defeats to California in the United States Supreme Court, Arizona finally came to the table and ratified the Compact. As we proceed, it becomes clear that each of these documents is part of a step by step building on the foundation of the 1922 Compact. These documents provide further operational refinement that build upon that foundation. The next document would be the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. The Upper Basin Compact is based upon the allocation to the Upper Basin under the Colorado River Compact. In 1948, it was recognized that the use of fixed amounts of water could not be allocated. It was not quite as simple as that. By this time, there were differing interpretations of the Colorado River Compact. It was clear that the Upper Basin may not be entitled to 7.5 million acre- feet, or there may not be 7.5 million acre-feet available. Therefore, the Upper Basin states allocated the water on a percentage basis. Colorado gets 51.75%, New Mexico gets 11.25%, Utah gets 23%, Wyoming gets 14%, and for the portion of Arizona in the Upper Basin, Arizona receives the only fixed allocation of 50 thousand acre-feet. The next important step in the building of the foundation was the U. S. Supreme Court opinion and decree in Arizona v. California. Arizona wanted to begin a project that would divert water from the Colorado River, and had been lobbying for the construction of the Central Arizona Project. In order to develop that Project, Arizona needed the assurance of a water supply. In 1952, Arizona tried for the fourth time to sue California to achieve that assurance. This time Arizona was victorious. The 1963 decision in Arizona v. California contained some strong language about the power and intent of Congress to enact the comprehensive allocation and regulatory scheme set forth in the Boulder Canyon proj ect Act. The Court reci ted the modern history of the River, the practical need for coordinated operation of national facilities among the states, and used this as a basis to confirm that Congress had vested the Secretary of Interior with broad discretionary powers. There is one quote in that opinion that speaks to the Court's view about the broad scope of federal authority in the Lower Basin. The Court said: .. "Having undertaken this beneficial project, Congress, in several provisions of the Act, made it clear that no one should use mainstream waters, save in strict compliance with the scheme setup by the Act. These several provisions, even without legislative history, demonstrate that Congress intended the Secretary of Interior, through his Section 5 contracts, both to allocate the waters of the main Colorado River among the Lower Basin states, and to decide which users within each state would receive water." Therefore, it was made clear that no one in the Lower Basin gets water out of the Colorado River except through a contract with the federal 13