Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~:0111~ S <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />definition of the 7,500,000 acre-feet of water apportioned to the <br />lower basin as defined by the Supreme Court via the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act. This definition is wholly inconsistent with the plain <br />terms of the Colorado River Compact. It is a very neat trick to <br />say that Article III(a) of the Compact has one meaning for the <br />lower basin and another meaning for the upper basin. But it has <br />been said, <br /> <br />As regards the upper basin, however, it: must be pointed out <br />that the Supreme Court was quite careful in stating that the case <br />before it involved only an apportionment of waters among the lower <br />basin states. The Court did not attempt to define or ascertain ..'.. <br />any obligation of the upper basin states with respect to either the <br />delivery of water to the lower basin or to the Republic of Mexico. <br /> <br />The litigation lasted approximately ten years. Buoyed by its <br />apparent victory, Arizona renewed its efforts in the United States <br />Congress to secure authorization of the Central Arizona Project, <br /> <br />7. Colorado River Basin Project Act <br /> <br />The latest chapter in the long struggle over the waters of <br />the Colorado River began after the decision in the Arizona vs. <br />California case. !nt1le the decision was greeted with great enthu- <br />siasm in Arizona, there was considerably less enthusiasm in the <br />other six basin states. Immediately after the decision was. <br />announced, Arizona again introduced legislation in Congress to <br />authorize the Central Arizona Project. ~iuch to Arizona's dismay, <br />it quickly became apparent that such legislation would not pass <br />~ithout the support of the other basin states. Negotiations among <br />the seven states then started in an attempt to resolve the many <br />issues. Representatives of the water resource agencies of the <br />various states were the principal negotiators and conducted numerous <br />meetings at various locations in an attempt to arrive at some <br />compromise legislation. <br /> <br />The Upper Division states feared that authorization of the <br />Central Arizona Project would impede further water resource develop- <br />ment in the Upper Basin. This fear was based on the fact that a <br />full water supply for the Central Arizona Project could not mate- <br />rialize without using waters allocated to the Upper Division, <br />california, smarting from its defeat in the court case, opposed the <br />legislation for the reason that it would reduce the amount of water <br />which California had previously been diverting. 'The climate for <br />the negotiations was not good and the meetings among the negotiators <br />were often stormy. :J:ventually, however, it became apparent that <br />future water resource development in each of the seven states would <br />be seriously jeopardized if such accommodation were not reached. <br />An accommodation was reached and resulted in the passage of the <br />Colorado River Basin Project Act, which was approved by the President <br />on September 30, 1968. Some of the principal provisions of that.. <br />act are as follows: <br /> <br />..,,/, <br />'~~ <br /> <br />-17- <br />