Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Nevada 2.1 <br />New Mexico 1 5.5 <br />Utah 15 10.8 <br />Wyoming 11 6.6 <br />G. Colorado River Basin Project Act <br />Arizona v.-California led directly to the Col rado River <br />Basin Project Act of 1968, 43 U.S.C. §1501 et I$Z. (1976). <br />The day after the Supreme Court's decision wjas issued, <br />Arizona's. Senators submitted a bill to authorize he Central <br />Arizona Project. The Colorado River Basin Project Act <br />authorized the CAP at a projected cost of $1.395 billion, and <br />it promised much more. <br />Congress recognized that the Colorado River system con- <br />tained too little water to satisfy the Mexican Water Treaty <br />burden and accommodate the growing needs of the upper and <br />Lower Basins. It concluded that "there can be no lasting <br />solution to the water problems and disputes of the states of <br />the Colorado River Basin without the additi n of more <br />water."32 The water of the River required augur ntation by <br />about 2.5 m.a.f., and without it, "One of America's fastest <br />growing,regions -- the Colorado River Basin -- i in danger <br />of economic stagnation.1133 Congress directed the Secretary <br />of the Interior to investigate augmentation of the River, see <br />43 U.S.C. §1511, primarily by importation from other basins <br />or desalinization. However, at the insistence of Senator <br />Henry Jackson and other representatives of the Northwest, it <br />suspended the examination of water importation possibilities <br />until 1978 (and subsequently extended the suspension to 1988) <br />-14-