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 />002n14 <br /> <br />lllillOUNA V. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PROBLEMS 17 <br /> <br />Between 1922 and 1927 three attempts were made in Congress to <br />obtain legislation authorizing the construction of a mainstream dam <br />and a canal located entirely in the United States to replace the existing <br />facility serving Imperial County. Congressman Philip Swing and Sen- <br />ator Hiram Johnson of California spearheaded these three efforts. <br /> <br />BOULDER CANYON PROJECT ACT <br /> <br />The follrth attemp~ to obtaiI]upproval, a fourth ,Swing-JohnsoJ;L bill, <br />was successful. When" Hl1nroved by Congress in December 1028.,it be- <br />came the Boulder Cany;~' Project Act and authorized the construction <br />of Hoover Dam arid the All-American Canal. (45 Statute 1057) <br />In the act Congress consented to the compact, waived the compact <br />requirement of seven-state approval, and provided "this approval shall <br />become effective when the State of California and at least five of the <br />other states mentioned, shall have approved or may hereafter approve <br />said compact as aforesaid and shall consent to such waiver, as herein <br />provided. " <br />The Project Act provided that it not take effect until (1) all seven <br />states ratified the contract, or (2) if the seven states did not ratify <br />within six months, until the compact was ratified by six states, including <br />California, and further including agreement by California to limitations <br />on its consumptive use of Colorado River water. <br />Arizona did not ratify the compact within the six-month period. <br />California's Legislature then passed the California Li,nitation Act in <br />1929." This accepted thc limitations imposed by the Project Act of: <br />(a) 4,400,000 acre-feet a year of the 7,500,000 acre-feet allocated to the <br />Lower Basin, plus (b) one-half the surplus or excess water available. <br />The mainstream supply only is to be considered in this computation <br />since the Project Act's apportionment of waters among the states of <br />the Lower Basin, in the court's opinion". . . was a complete statutory <br />apportionment intended to put to an end the long-standing dispute <br />over Colorado River waters. " 4 <br />The limitations on California in the Project Act were again a protec- <br />tion to the Upper Basin states. As the court stated, "The Upper Basin <br />states feared that, if Arizona did not ratify the Compact, the division <br />of water between the Upper and Lower Basin agreed on in the Compact <br />would be nullified. The reasoning was that Arizona's uses would not <br />be charged against the Lower Basin's apportionment and that Cali- <br />fornia woulq therefore be free to exhaust that apportionment herself. <br />Total Lower Basin uses would then be more than permitted in the <br />Compact, leaving less water for the Upper Basin." 5 <br />The Project Act authorized Arizona, Nevada and California to enter <br />into an agreement further apportioning the Lower Basin share between <br />them as follows (beneficial consumptive use) : <br /> <br />1. Apportioning to Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet annually. <br />2. Apportioning to Arizona, 2,800,000 acre-feet annually. <br />3. Providing that Arizona may annually use one-half of the excess <br />or surplus waters "unapportioned by the compact." <br /> <br />a Stats. of 1929, (:h. 16. See appendix for text of this legislation. <br />'10 L.EJd.2d 555. . <br />!SLoo. cit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.