My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC00493
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSPC00493
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:50:06 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:13:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
6/3/1963
Title
AZ Vs CA - Determination of Rights of States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River - Opinion of the Supreme Court of the US - RE AZ Vs CA
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.
/
100
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 />002184 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />construction of a dam in the canyon section of the Colo- <br />rado River and an all-American canal!1 These bills <br />would have carried out the original Fall-Davis Report's <br />recommendations that the river problem be recognized <br />and treated as national, not local. Arizona's Senators and <br />Congressmen, still insisting upon a definite guaranty of <br />water from the mainstream, bitterly fought these pro- <br />posals because they failed to provide for exclusive use of <br />her own tributaries, particularly the Gila, and for exemp- <br />tion of these tributaries from the Mexican burden. <br />Finally, the fourth Swing-Johnson bill passed both <br />Houses and became the Boulder Canyon Project Act of <br />December 21, 1928, 45 Stat. 1057. The Act authorized <br />the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and <br />maintain a dam and other works in order to control floods, <br />improve navigation, regulate the river's flow, store and <br />distribute waters for reclamation and other beneficial <br />uses, and generate electrical power!. The projects au- <br />thorized by the Act were the same as those provided for <br />in the prior defeated measures, but in other significant <br />respects the Act was strikingly different. The earlier bills <br />had offered no method whatever of apportioning the wa- <br />ters among the States of the Lower Basin. The Act as <br />finally passed did provide such a method, and, as we view <br />it, the method chosen was a complete statutory appor- <br />tionment intended to put an end to the long-standing dis- <br />pute over Colorado River waters. To protect the, Upper <br />Basin against California should Arizona still refuse to <br />ratify the Compact,29 ~ 4 (a) of the Act as finally passed <br /> <br />27 H. R. 11449, 67th Cong., 2d Sess. (1922); H. R. 2903, S, 727, <br />68th Cong., 1st Sess, (1923); H. R. 9826, S. 3331, 69th Cong., 1st <br />Bess. (1926). <br />28 Another purpose of the Act was to approve the Colorado River <br />Compact, which had allocated the water between the two basins, <br />29 The Upper Basin States feared that, if Arizona did not ratify the <br />Compact, the division of water between the Upper and Lower Basins <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.