WSPC06768 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0f.l1857 California was vitally concerned with the development of additional storage, such as Hoover Dam later provided. At that time the exact site of the dam and the resulting reservoir the desires of the lower-basin in certain basic principles of apparent to all those who were time. __"-__ .:1':.:11 .&.."-_ _______ "L..__':_ l""~_.__ ___':._,,- wuy u.~u. ...uc: u,J:JJ:''=,L -1Jc:lo:t.l.U .oJ ....G'-'Ci'g ....oc:;w..;n.. States for storage? The reason lies appropriative water law which were concerned with this problem at that had not been dete~mined_ Now, California and Arizona, particularly California, were developing at a very rapid rate so far as the consumptive uses of water were concerned. The upper basin States for economic and climatic reasons were developing much more slowly. As additional reservoir sites were developed in the lower basin, it was the fear of the upper basin that by date of priority those reservoirs would provide a basis upon which eventually the lower basin States might acquire the rights to all or nearly all of the river, subject only to what very small development might have taken place in the upper basin prior to the time that these various storage developments came into the picture. They had real ~fears underlying their opposition to that storage development in the lower basin. In particular, there was litigation pending before the Supreme Court, the nature of which was known by the negotiators. That litigation led to the famous decision of the Supreme Court in Wyoming v. Colorado (259 U. S. 419), which was decided in 1922, the very year that the compact was negotiated. The Honorable Delph Car- penter, after considering the opinion of the Court which applied a strict rule of priority of date of appropriation as between conflict- ing claimants in Wyoming and Colorado, said in a legal memorandum which was attached to his official report to the Colorado State Legis- lature, as follows: The upper State has but one alternative, that of using every means to retard development in the lower State until the uses within the upper State have reached their maximum. There you have the nub of the reason why the lower basin States were willing to sit at a table and negotiate with the upper basin States. SENATOR ANDERSON. Y'lill you read that again, please? MR. BENNETT (reading): The upper State has but one alternative-- that is, namely, to this decision of Wyoming v. Colorado-- 4