My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPP00068
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPP00068
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:47:23 AM
Creation date
10/1/2006 2:03:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Basin-Colorado River Basin Legislation/Law-Compacts-Colorado River Compact
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/1/1976
Author
CWCB
Title
Colorado River Compact-Synopsis of Major Documents-Synopsis of Major Documents and Events Relating to the Colorado River
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />(C <br />U) <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />California - March 4, 1929, Utah - March 6, 1929, and Arizona - <br />February 24, 1944. <br /> <br />Of particular importance is the fact that for many years <br />the Arizona legislature refused to ratify the compact, despite <br />the urging of its commissioner. This refusal caused consider- <br />able consternation among the other states, since the compact <br />by its explicit terms provided that it would not become <br />effective until approved by the legislatures of each of the <br />signatory states. This problem was solved by the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act of 1928. <br /> <br />2. Boulder Canyon pro;ect Act of 1928 <br /> <br />After the execution of the Colorado River Compact by the <br />signatory states, the state of California renewed its battle to <br />obtain congressional authorization for the construction of the t... <br />Boulder Dam project. At the time this battle was renewed, the <br />legislatures of Arizona, California and Utah had not yet ratifie <br />the compact. However, it was anticipated that both California and <br />Utah would ratify the compact, but that Arizona would not. This <br />problem was neatly solved by a provision of the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act passed by Congress in 1928 which specified that the <br />Colorado River Compact would become effective when ratified by the <br />legislatures of six states. Almost immediately after the passage <br />of that act, the states of California and Utah ratified the compact, <br />bringing the total number to six and thus making the compact a <br />reality. <br /> <br />The act specifically states that it is subject to the terms <br />of the Colorado River Compact. In order to placate ~he state of <br />Arizona, the act provided that it would not become effective until <br />the state of California, by act of its legislature, had irrevocably <br />agreed to limit its consumptive use of water from the Colorado River <br />to 4.4 million acre-feet annually. This the legislature of <br />California did, although reluctantly. However, thie provision did <br />not satisfy Arizona and it fought the passage of the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act. The act was supported by all the other states of the <br />Colorado River Basin. The principal purpose of the a:t was to <br />authorize the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam on the lower <br />Colorado River. <br /> <br />An extremely significant section of the act autlorized the <br />states of Arizona, California and Nevada to enter in:o an interstate <br />compact which would divide among those states the 7.; million acre- <br />feet of water apportioned annually to the Lower Basi~ by the Colo- <br />rado River Compact. The apportionment suggested by :ongress was <br />2.8 maf to Arizona, 4.4 maf to California, and .3 mal to Nevada. <br />Congress further suggested that Arizona should have ~xclusive <br />beneficial consumptive use of that part of the Gila liver and its <br />tributaries within the boundaries of the state of Ar~zona, and that <br />the Gila River should never be called upon to satisf7 any agreement <br /> <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.