|
<br />~;;. ::7~Jt:~f+:~":f'::7::;'~;" ":,::J,-jlf,t::i~,'
<br />
<br />.,.:.~;1(dJ;.~.. ~~,",:{,~,; ':,'r~"",'~i~~,,~~.':,'~';::t... t
<br />':. ..,!' ."~':';"'~:~.;" ..-
<br />
<br />
<br />36
<br />
<br />STANFORD LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. '9: Page,
<br />
<br />and that rdeases should be regulated to facilitate operation of Lower Basin
<br />hydroelectric projects, while the Upper Basin maintains that the dam is also
<br />to be used for agricultural and domestic purposes.'" The Upper Basin
<br />argues that rdease of Glen Canyon water for Lower Basin hydrodectric
<br />projects will give the Upper Basin a right to divert the Colorado upstream
<br />for agricultural and domestic uses. Thus, because Glen Canyon water is
<br />"exchanged" for upstream water that is used for agricultural and domestic
<br />purposes, Glen Canyon water is itself being devoted, by substitution, to
<br />such uses.'" An Upper Basin authority discounts this argument, since the
<br />limited quantity of present uses-hence, the absence of any need for an
<br />"exchange"-means that Glen Canyon water will be used for power, not
<br />"exchange," while Lake Powell is filling.''' Article XV's effectiveness to
<br />stop rdease of water for downstream power and to provide a means of
<br />facilitating "exchanges" has yet to be tested.
<br />Article XVI, which provides that failure of a state to use apportioned
<br />water shall not constitute a surrender of any of its water rights to another
<br />state or to the Lower Basin, rellects an upper riparian's traditional concern
<br />with priorities gained by earlier downstream development. The rate of de.
<br />velopment of the water resources of a state or nation depends upon its /inan.
<br />ci..1 resources, which include its credit and ability to secure aid. In the
<br />United States the pocket with the most money is the federal government,
<br />and obtaining this money for local devdopment requires skillful use of the
<br />political process. Often one state is able to secure a project at the expense of
<br />another state because it possesses more inlluence in Washington. Fearing
<br />uneven devdopment and inequality in priorities, the Upper Basin states
<br />rejected provisions requiring periodic review and modi/ication of substan.
<br />tive provisions of the compact.'"
<br />Article XVII merely allows states to import water into the Colorado
<br />Basin without regard to the compact, which deals only with waters of the
<br />Colorado River system. Article XIX contains the last of the compact's im.
<br />portant provisions. The five Upper Basin states were not the only claimants
<br />to water; the federal government had water rights on the river system
<br />which were, in some instances, superior to state claims (for example, its
<br />right to supply Indian reservations).'" In general, the compact disclaims
<br />
<br />149. Su Clyde, suprg Dote 144. at 110-:11.
<br />ISO. ld.:u J:21-2;2.
<br />151. ltI..at 1:22-23.
<br />152. ;I: Ri.COllD. Meeting No.6. at U-14. .Utah argued that puiodic review would bt:nefit the
<br />Up~r Basin because if one Uppu Basin sUle Wa.!; not using the water, it would go to another upper
<br />IUle at the:: a:pc:nse of a Lower Basin AUte. Howc:vu, Colorado', argument that if one state was
<br />unable to make fuU use of her water in the future a suppl~ental compact could be drawn ulti.
<br />mately prevailed.
<br />153. WOller righls for Indian reservations are created when the reservations ate established. Ari-
<br />ZODa v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 600 (1963) (opinion); Wioten Y. United States, 207 U.s. 564. 577
<br />(1908). The extent of these rights bas not been fully defined, but a reservation probably has the right
<br />
<br />I'o,'ember '966]
<br />
<br />an}' intention of imp
<br />the federal govermm
<br />
<br />C. Ratification of the
<br />Ratification of the 1
<br />ti,'d}' routine. Hearir
<br />and Reclamation of tl
<br />after which the comr.
<br />signatory states, the .'
<br />were the Lower Bas!"
<br />~sr<cially concerned (
<br />her Congressmen, Cl::
<br />nons about it. These c
<br />jr<t of the hearings in
<br />pact was not binding
<br />maId}' received, assm,
<br />b)' an}' definitions co
<br />Basin states con sid ere,
<br />to their Lee Ferry deL
<br />plus. California also ,
<br />future litigation by tl
<br />.ion.''' With Califor
<br />compact.101
<br />
<br />IV. CONFLlC
<br />
<br />Contrasting with t
<br />J;orous strife in the Lc
<br />in baleful opposition f,
<br />I3wsuits in the Uni;
<br />
<br />I., '1 much water as is nece.ss.
<br />C.hlo,rma. 376 U.S. 340 (196
<br />(tllh Cu. 1939). flOUt! in )8 I
<br />1')4. H~Il,..ings B~/or~ Q .-
<br />.. r..,M,c Lands, But Cong., .
<br />155. /d. at )66.
<br />156. SlY it!. al 16.
<br />157. Congres.sman Barrel
<br />i.n" ".jth Ariwna. ld. at 17. .
<br />bound. /d. at 58-59.
<br />158.ld.aI58.
<br />159. Ihid.
<br />lbo. Ih,d.
<br />161. 63.Stat. 31 (1949).
<br />161, Anzona v. Californ
<br />""'Dnnilulional); Arizona v. '
<br />hU.." of 1911 compact); Un:
<br />hllt'tfrrC'nce with construction
<br />"~"'lI.11hle .pponionment of tht
<br />
<br />
|