WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 1966] THE COLORADO RIVER II problems, too. There is always the danger that the upper states will simply shut off the water. In the United States, of course, the Supreme Court can prevent the upper state from persisting in this drastic course of .action, but the Court has been indulgent of later developing upper uses, even though they diminish the supply available to earlier downstream users." More- over, the downstream state cannot be sure of getting into the Supreme Court, since in many cases the United States will be an indispensable party whose consent to be sued must be obtained. Thus, upper states' need for protection against monopolization of the water supply by lower states and lower states' need for a secure supply produce favorable conditions for the set dement of disputes by agreement. Almost as important in prompting negotiated settlements is the lower states' need for river regulation to prevent floods and to provide, through storage, a stable supply in dry years. In the early part of the rwentieth century, these fears and these needs were felt throughout the Colorado River Basin. The Supreme Court described the situation thus :.. Lower Basin inter- ests had from the early part of the century agitated for regulation of the river in its lower reaches. Particularly interested were the farmers in Cali-, fomia's Imperial Valley, wh.:> had suffered a disastrous flood in 19<>4-1905 and who feared a recurrence. Moreover,lmperial Valley was supplied with irrigation water through canals and works in Mexico, which subjected them to the uncertainties of dual sovereignty and to the requirement that the water be shared with Mexican users. Imperial Valley and other users also sought storage on the river to provide a supply in times of drought and to reduce the silt burden of the stream. Investigation of river control possibilities soon revealed that the magnitude of the project would for both financial and legal reasons require the participation of the federal government. Such participation depended, at least in part, on the assent (or, perhaps, acquiescence) of the federal representatives of Upper Basin interests. The Upper Basin was fearful that construction of the dam in the Lower Basin would give to Lower Basin users legally enforceable claims to a disproportionate amount of river water. These fears were not withour foundation, for in 1922 the Supreme Court of the United States had de- clared "priority of appropriation.... to be the governing rule in litigation berween states for the equitable apportionment of a stream." With the the J9:22 compact and w~e intensified by the decision in Wyoming v. Colorado, :159 U.S. 419 (1922), which ga\'c gre:1It weight to priority of appropriation in lrlterstate equitable apportionment luiu. Sa Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (J963); Wilbur &. Ely, Th~ Hoov~ Darn Documt1JlI, H.ll. Doc. No. 717. 80th Cong.,:zd Sess.:::!2 (1948). 63. Su, e.g., Colorado v. Kansas, 310 U.s. 383 (1943); Kansas v. Color.;ado, 106 U.S. 46 (1907). 64. The following description is summarized from the majority opinion in Arizona v. California, 373 U.s. ,,6 ('963). . ~5. Priority of appropriation can b4= d~fined with substantial accuracy as b~ing a rule of "first in time IS first in right." 66. Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. ,,19 (J922). ;".' , t I ., . :. .;.: I * "~' , ~ . .~: " l .. ~ ~ I 'i i I: I I , I I i