My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC03421
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
15000-15999
>
WSPC03421
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:35:01 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:55:27 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
12/1/1964
Title
AZ Vs CA - Arizona V California and Pacific Southwest Water Problems - California Assembly Interim Committee Reports - 1963-1965 - Volume 26-Number 13
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.
/
174
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 />16 <br /> <br />ASSEMBLY INTERIM COMMITTEE ON WATER <br /> <br />Ou2013 <br /> <br />LEGISLATIVE HISTORY <br /> <br />The need for major development on the Colorado was widely recog- <br />nized in the early part of the century. In 1920, the Congress passed <br />the Kinkaid Act which directed the Secretary of the Interior to make <br />a study of some of the River's problems. Subsequently, the Fall-Davis <br />Report was submitted to Congress in February 1922. One of this re- <br />port's recommendations was that "through suitable legislation the <br />United States undertake the construction with government funds of <br />a reSelo\1ulI" at ur :[1ear Buulder Canyon. . . . ~-~ 1 <br />A political problem blocked such a project, however. 'l'he more slowly <br />developing Upper Basin states were apprehensive that such a I,ower <br />Basin facility would result in rapid expansion of irrigation in the <br />Lower Basin and would form the basis for a.ppropriative rights in the <br />Lower Basin to the detriment of Upper Basin needs. At that time, as <br />today, the doctrine of prior appropriation govcrned water rights in all <br />Colorado River Basin states inclttding California, which also recognizes <br />riparian rights. <br /> <br />THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT <br /> <br />In 1921, at the request of the affected states, Congress authorized <br />the states to enter into a compact" providing for an equitable division <br />and apportionment among. said states of the water supply of the Colo- <br />rado River and of the streams tributary thereto. . . ." Commissioners <br />were appointed and a compact was sign cd in Santa Fe, New Mexico, <br />on November 24, 1922, by representatives of the seven states and .fhe <br />United States. <br />The compact has several main provisions: <br /> <br />1. It divides the Colorado River Basin into two parts as shown on <br />the map on p. 15. <br />2. It apportioned from the "Colorado Itiver system" in perpetuity <br />7,500,000 acre-feet a year to each of the two basins for beneficial <br />consumptive use. <br />3. It authorized the Lower Basin the right to increase its beneficial <br />consumptive use by 1,000,000 acre-feet a year. <br />4. It recognized the rights of Mexico to waters of the Colorado. This <br />share was to come from the surplus over the 16,OOO,000 allocated <br />to the two basins. The compact provided, however, that if this <br />surplus was not available, the Mexico share shall be met equally <br />by the Upper and Lower Basins. <br />5. It required the states of the Upper Basin to "not cause the fiow <br />of the river at Lee Ferry to be dcpletcd below an aggregate of <br />75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of lO consecutive years . . ." <br /> <br />The compact was promptly ratified by the Legislatures of all of the <br />states except Arizona? <br /> <br />1 Arizona v. California, RepoTt of the Special Master, at 21. <br />2 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the reasons for Arizona,'s refusal was <br />the Compact's inclusion of tributary flo\v, particularly the Gila, in its allocation <br />scheme. See 10 L.Ed,2d 554. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.