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 />01J2195 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />gressional solution. A Swing-Johnson bill containing no <br />limitation on California's uses finally passed the House <br />in 1928 over objections by Representatives from Arizona <br />and Utah," When the bill reached the Senate, it was <br />amended in committee to provide that the Secretary in his <br />water delivery contracts must limit California to 4,600;000 <br />acre-feet "of the water allocated to the lower basin by <br />the Colorado River compact . . . and one-half of the <br />unallocated, excess, and/or surplus water . . . ." 46 On <br />the floor, Senator Phipps of Colorado proposed an amend- <br />ment which would allow the Act to go into effect without <br />any limitation on California if seven States ratified the <br />Compact; if only six States ratified and if California legis- <br />lature accepted the limitation, the Act could still become <br />effective." Ari~ona's Senator Hayden had already pro- <br />posed an amendment reducing California's share to <br />4,200,000 acre-feet (the Governors' proposal), plus half of <br />the surplus, leaving Arizona exclusive use of the Gila free <br />from any Mexican obligation,'. but this the Senate re- <br />jected". Senator Bratton of New Mexico, noting that <br />only 400,000 acre-feet kept Arizona and California apart, <br />immediately suggested an amendment by which they <br />would split the difference, California getting 4,400,000 <br />acre-fee't "of the waters apportioned to the lower basin <br />States by the Colorado River compact," plus half of sur- <br />plus.'o It was this Bratton amendment that became part <br />of the Act as passed, 51 which had been amended on the <br /> <br />45 H. R. 5773, 70th Cong" 1st Sess.; 69 Cong, Rec. 9989-9990 (1928), <br />46 S. Rep, No. 592, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1928). <br />4770 Congo Rec, 324 (1928). <br />4. Id" at 162. <br />49Id., at 384. <br />50 Id" at 385. <br />51 45 Stat. 1057 (1928). Arizona's Senators Ashurst and Hayden <br />voted againstthe bill, which did not exempt the Gila from the Mexican <br />burden. 70 Congo Rec. 603 (1928). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.