Laserfiche WebLink
amount up to a total of 1.7 m.a.f. if the United States <br />enjoyed a surplus. In the event of extraordinary drought or <br />serious accident to its irrigation system, the Treaty also <br />allowed the United States to reduce the delivery below 1.5 <br />m.a.f. in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the <br />United States were reduced. <br />At the time all of the basin states, except California, <br />viewed the Treaty with equanimity and supported its ratifica- <br />tion by the Senate.19 Hindsight has been much less comfort- <br />ing. "In actual fact, the treaty has proven to be extremely <br />vexatious to all states of the Colorado River Basin and <br />probably will become the subject of protracted litigat- <br />ion. ..."20 There has been a natural tendency to second- <br />guess its negotiators. One theory is that fear of a Japanese <br />invasion of Mexico in 1941 and 1942 had panicked the Federal <br />Government into granting extravagant water concessions in <br />return for military collaboration.21 There is also consider- <br />able evidence that the United States traded away water on the <br />Colorado to obtain extra benefits on the Rio Grande.22 <br />However, in 1944, Jean Breitenstein, then attorney for the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation Board, argued that the 1929 <br />Pan American Arbitration Treaty would in any event compel the <br />United States to enter into a similar kind of arrangement-23 <br />D. The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact <br />The Upper Basin states, plus Arizona, signed the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin Compact in 1948, Ch. 48, 63 Stat. 31 <br />-9-