|
<br />
<br />-:.. :."'t ...,~. '".-"..'''
<br />
<br />[Vol. '9: Page I
<br />
<br />~ation of Lower Basin
<br />lins that the dam is also
<br />s.'" The Upper Basin
<br />'er Basin hydroelectric
<br />the Colorado upstream
<br />Glen Canyon water is
<br />-icultural and domestic
<br />:ed, by substitution, to
<br />lis argument, since the
<br />ce of any need for an
<br />~e used for pOWer, not
<br />e XV's effectiveness to
<br />to provide a means of
<br />
<br />ate to use apportioned
<br />",ater rights to another
<br />'n's traditional concern
<br />pment. The rate of de-
<br />kpends upon its linan-
<br />to secure aid. In the
<br />e federal government,
<br />lires skillful use of the
<br />ojcet at the expense of
<br />Washington. Fearing
<br />It Upper Basin states
<br />x:lilication of substan,
<br />
<br />'er into the Colorado
<br />Iy with watm of the
<br />of the compact's im-
<br />lOt the only claimants
<br />on the river system
<br />ns (for example, its
<br />e compact disclaims
<br />
<br />. reyiew would bcnefi[ the
<br />would go to atIorner upper
<br />lent that if one lUte w.a3
<br />pact could be drawtl ulti.
<br />llioDS are e$ublished. Ari.
<br />SloItes, .207 U.S. 564, 577
<br />ion probably has the right
<br />
<br />>
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />THE COLORADO RIVER
<br />
<br />37
<br />
<br />:-:~,nnlcr ,#1
<br />
<br />. !J'on of impairing or affecting the rights, duties, and privileges of
<br />alll' 111=
<br />,he fedcr.U government.
<br />
<br />C. RarificaJion of the Compact
<br />
<br />R2tifiotion of the Upper Colorado River Compact by <:ongress w~s r~la-
<br />. . I ' routine. Hearings were held before the Subcommlllee on lrngatlon
<br />II' el krclamation of the House Committee on Public Lands for four days,'"
<br />~~. which the committee recommended approval.'" Apart from the five
<br />~m . . I th
<br />. 10M.' states the only par!Jes to comment extensIve y on e compact
<br />"1;:n~.J ) . . .
<br />..."re the Lower Bas1l1 sutes and the federal government. Califorma was
<br />>e<ially concerned over adverse consequences of the compact, and one of
<br />~~r Congressmen, Clair Engle, a water expert, propounded a series of ques-
<br />lions about it. These questions and the answers to them were the chie! sub-
<br />je<"t of the hearings in the House. Engle wanted to make sure that the com-
<br />f'2CI \\'2S nOI binding on a nonsignatory state.~" He first sought, and ulti-
<br />".alel)' received, assurances thaI the Lower BaSin slales would not be bound
<br />11)' any definitions contained in the r948 compact'" and that the Upper
<br />]U.in staleS considered themselves bound by the 1922 compac!,'" especially
<br />lu their Lee Ferry delivery obligations'" and to future divisions of any sur-
<br />plu.. C:1lifornia also obtained assurance that she was not to be bound in
<br />(ulurt litigation by the flow figures found by the Upper Basin Camm;s-
<br />,ion.''' 'Vith California satisfied, Congress promptly consented to the
<br />'"
<br />compacl.
<br />
<br />IV. CONFLICTS AMONG THE STATES OF THF. LOWER BASIN
<br />
<br />Contrasting with the harmony in the Upper Basin has been the clan-
<br />gurous strife in the Lower Basin, where Arizona and California have been
<br />in baleful opposition for at least forty-four years. Out of this have come five
<br />lawsuits in the United States Supreme Court,'" a filibuster in the
<br />
<br />.. ., much \Wattt a~ is necesgry [0 cultivat~ th~ irri.g:a.ble acrog~ within thoe reservation. Ariwn. "<i.
<br />Cat.ltlrnla. 376 U.s. 3",0 (1964) (deCree); I~~ Uoned St;:tes v. Walk~ River Irr. Out., 104 F.:td :\34
<br />(9111 Cu. 1939). "aud in IS ROCKY MT. L. Rn-..0427 (1946); lext :lIccompanying DOtes 2sS--79 i"j,a.
<br />"<4. Ht'~.nz/ Bt'lor~ tl SHh(ofT1rni/lu on l"iglUion amI RecliJmation of the Ho,ue Commiuee
<br />.. PIIJJ.r undl, But Cong., ut Ses.s., $Cr. 5 (1949).
<br />I". ltI.at 166.
<br />,,6. St"rig.:ilt 16.
<br />1,57. ~ngrasm20n Barrett of W}"oming remarked t:h:oa C21iIornia is "left in rhe: mess they arc:
<br />In" .'Ilh Aru.on.a. Id. .;at 17. The UppC'r BOIsin States formall}' answaed that nonsignatories arc not
<br />loo-und. Id. at SB-S9.
<br />'S6. Ii. at 58.
<br />11Ij1jl.lbUi.
<br />Il",.//Jid.
<br />16.. 6] Slat. ]1 (1949).
<br />.(i~. Atizon.2 v. California, ::zS3 U.S. 4:J3 (193r) (suit to declare Boulder Canyon Project Act
<br />~nrnrutjfution:ll); Arizona v. ~Jifol"Dia, .29.2 U.S, 341 (1934) (suit to perperuate testimoD}' oC nego-
<br />'''Inn 01 192: compact); .UnjfNf States v, Arizona, ::Z95 U.s. '74 (1935) (suit to enjoin Arizona's
<br />Iftlt~e'ence WI~ construCbon of P:uke.r Dam); Arizona v. California, .298 U.S. 558 (1936) (suit for
<br />e-quluble .apportionment of the wilten 01 r:he Colorado); Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963)
<br />
|