WSPC04714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G018:J7 . . objective of the second alternative--six state compact plus Limitation Act--was to provide assurance to the upper states, if Arizona remained intransigent, that California would not appropriate all the water permitted the lower basin by the Compact and that Arizona, outside the Compact, would not invade the upper basin's apportionment of 7,500,000 acre-feet under the Compact. California's appropriations were especially feared because most of the irrigable land which can be reached without prohibitive pump lifts is on the California side of the river, as are the thirsty millions which can afford to pay for municipal water pumped across and through mountain ranges for use by cities and towns. With this compromise, the Boulder Canyon Project Act passed,l! over the objections of the Arizona delegation in Congress. Arizona still refused to ratify the Compact, and the California legislature enacted the Limitation Act in the terms prescribed. By this act, California limited her rights to 4,400,000 acre-feet of the "aggregate annual consumptive use (diversions less returns to the river)" of the 7,500,000 acre- feet apportioned to the lower basin by Article III(a) of the Colorado River Compact, plus one half of the "excess or surplus waters unapportioned" by the Compact.Y l! 45 Stat. 1057, 43 U.S.C. ~~ 617-6l7t (l952). 51 See text of ~ 4(a) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, app. B. This section states the conditions under which the Boulder canyon Project Act might become effective, and prescribes the language of the California Limitation Act) enacted by the California Legislature March 4, 1929. Cal. Stats. 1929, ch. l6, p. 38. The Project Act was declared effective by the prescribed presidential proclamation on June 25, 1929. 19.