Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C01530 <br /> <br />~~~) <br /> <br />flow of the River had been appropriated by senior appropriators in <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the Lower Basin. <br /> <br />In the view of one of the Lower Basin states, Arizona, the <br /> <br />It <br /> <br />Compact was not occasioned by the belief that there existed an <br />insufficient supply of water in the River if properly conserved for <br /> <br />the reasonable needs of the entire Basin for agriculture and <br /> <br />domestic uses. Rather, in Arizona's view,' <br /> <br />The Compact had its inception in the <br />apprehension of the people of the upper states <br />that great dams of storage works for river <br />control, agriculture, and power might be built <br />somewhere below the Utah line and that thereby <br />priority of right may grow out of these works <br />which will embarrass and curtail their own <br />agricultural development. This fear is based <br />upon the law of prior appropriation in its <br />application to an interstate stream, a <br />doctrine which has recently been recognized <br />and applied by the supreme court of the United <br />states in the case of Wyominq v. Colorado. <br /> <br />See, Hoover Dam Documents, U.S. Gov't. <br />Printing Office, 1948 Ed.., p. A65. <br /> <br />It was Arizona's view that the united opposition of the four <br /> <br />states, of the Upper Basin when added to the indifference and <br /> <br />possible opposition of the East and Middle West would create <br /> <br />significant risks to the development by Arizona and California of <br /> <br />the Colorado River. <br /> <br />While the underlying purpose for the Compact was to protect <br /> <br />the Upper Basin from the law of prior appropriation as applied in <br /> <br />equi table apportionment proceedings of interstate streams (and <br /> <br />4 <br />