My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC04714
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
18000-18999
>
WSPC04714
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:40:39 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 4:47:09 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
7/17/1959
Author
Charles E Corker
Title
AZ Vs CA - Legal Documents 1958-1965 - The Issues in Arizona V California - A Paper Prepared for Presentation at CU Western Resources Conference
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.
/
61
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 />(;u18JO <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Negotiations among the seven states continued <br /> <br />unsuccessfully for six years with the objective of getting <br />Arizona into the Compact. Finally another compromise resulted <br />in the Boulder Canyon Project Act enacted by Congress in <br />December 1928. That act was conditioned on one of two con- <br />tingencies: (1) ratification of the Colorado River Compact <br />within six months by all seven Colorado River basin states, or <br />(2) ratification by six states including California, with waiver <br />of the provision in Article XI which requires seven state <br /> <br />ratification, and passage of an act by the California legislature <br />agreeing with the United states, and for the express benefit of <br /> <br />the other six Colorado River <br /> <br />states, to limit <br />system water.Y <br /> <br />California's <br /> <br />rights to use Colorado River <br /> <br />The announced <br /> <br />[Continued) <br /> <br />Norviel, l,OOO,OOO acre-feet was added as a margin of safety, <br />brj.nging the total allotment for the lower basin up to <br />8,500,000 acre-feet." Arizona Exhibit 49, Report of Richard E. <br />Sloan, legal adviser to W. S. Norvie1, Compact negotiator for <br />Arizona, Jan. 15, 1923. Reprinted, Wilbur and Ely, Hoover Dam <br />Documents, H.R. Doc. No. 7l7, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (l94b), <br />pp. Ab3, A69. <br /> <br />11 In the present litigation, Arizona admitted in, her <br />pleadings that a Limitation Act was required only in the event <br />of Arizona's failure to ratify the Colorado River Compact. <br />California Answer to Arizona, par. 21, p. 20; Arizona Reply to <br />California Answer, par. 21, p. 22. Arizona, at the close of <br />trial sought to repudiate the admission (disputed by no other <br />party) and now contonds that the Limitation Act is a condition <br />of either six or seven state ratification of the Colorado River <br />compact. Arizona Answering Brief, June l, 1959, pp. 23-27. <br /> <br />18. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.