WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002183 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 9 Arizona tributaries, again particularly the Gila, forced to contribute to the Mexican burden. Largely for these reasons, Arizona alone, of all the States in both basins, refused to ratify the Compact." Seeking means which would permit ratification by all seven basin States, the Governors of those States met at Denver in 1925 and again in 1927. As a result of these meetings the Governors of the upper States suggested, as a fair apportionment of water among the Lower Basin States, that out of the average annual delivery of water at Lee Ferry required by the Compact-7,500,000 acre-feet- Nevada be given 300,000 acre-feet, Arizona 3,000,000, and California 4,200,000, and that unapportioned waters, subject to reapportionment after 1963, be shared equally by Arizona and California. Each Lower Basin State would have "the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of such tributaries within its boundaries before the same empty into the main stream," except that Arizona tribu- tary waters in excess of 1,000,000 acre-feet could under some circumstances be subject to diminution by reason of a United States treaty with Mexico. This proposal foundered because California held out for 4,600,000 acre- feet instead of 4,200,000 25 and because Arizona held out for complete exemption of its tributaries from any part of the Mexican burden.2.. Between 1922 and 1927 Congressman Philip Swing and Senator Hiram Johnson, both of California, made three attempts to have Swing-Johnson bills enacted, authorizing "Arizona did ratify the Compact in 1944, after it had already become effective by six-state ratification as permitted by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, 2S Hearings on H. ~. fi773 before the House Committee.on Irriga- tion and Reclamation, 70th Cong., 1st Bess. 402-405 (1928). 2. I d., at 30-31. Arizona also objected to the provisions c~ncerning electrical power.