Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001822 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />would charge the treaty burden to lower basin states without <br />regard to priority. <br />Manifestly, it is impossible here to consider any of <br />these questions in detail, and this short catalog of issues <br />is by no means exhaustive. The contention that the Colorado <br />River Compact does not include lower basin tributaries we think <br />is disposed of by the Compact itself, and its reference to the <br />"Colorado River System." "Colorado River System" is defined in <br />Article I1(a) as "that portion of the Colorado River and its <br />tributaries within the United States. ,,1/ <br />As the argument was in the beginning in 1923, so it is <br />in the end in 1959: accountability of the uses of the waters of <br />the Gila River system. The new Arizona contention is simplicity <br />itself: The Compact is a settlement between upper and lower <br />basins. Since water does not flow upstream, the upper basin is <br />wholly unconcerned, and so is the Compact, with the lower basin <br />tributaries. <br />If the language of the Compact were not enough, the history <br />of the Compact and of the Project Act which made the Compact <br />effective destroys the premise on which the argument rests. <br />Delph Carpenter of Colorado, father of the Compact, also wrote <br />the amendments to the Project Act which write the terms of the <br />Compact into every water right on every part of the Colorado <br /> <br />1/ Reports of the Compact negotiators, all placed in evi- <br />dence by Arizona prior to her change of position, are found on <br />pages A23 through A133 of Wilbur & Ely, Hoover Dam Documents, <br />H.R. Doc. No. 717, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (194~). <br /> <br />34. <br />