WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IVol. '9: Page I ornia border,''' and :arings and judicia] 'Jaster in Arizona" : of the river would rater. ) states has endur<<l {Otten one would be and cooperation in stified can best be oIifornia 1922 was signed in Ie compact was in ing account, taken , Arizona was in the ncials, a campaign in ns became involved. in general supported )emocTats, led by the :'Dor for three terms :h terms as Arizo~ lDIediateJy indicated , ,en being completed .ana. He questioned be based, expTessed . irrigating land fOT fOT poweT devdop. 'h the lame-<luck lct (supported by 'Iy Herbat Hoo. . The legislature of Lowa Basio states )th Cong., :ld SeD. 40 ld somewhat obstrep- Ie' asymmetrical article I millioD acrc~fert a Gila Riva, a pan of Colorado .River Com- ". II. CJi/ONJiIJ. THE COLORADO RIVER t'O\-uober ,g66 J in its 1~3 session fClll'JWed the lead of the new governor and refused r:uifiC'2tion. ". The l"e.:lsons for th~ failure of the compact in the 1923 legislature and thereafter hJ,\-e bcxn \"a-riously 3t,igned. Some attributed the opposition of the mining, agri. cuJhJraJ. and power jfJ(t'rc:sts as the most i.mport3nc factor. l!ndoubtedly these roups were by and large opposed along WIth a large propoTt.lOn of the geneTal ~ Wic. The farmers lc.arcd they would not receive a fair share of the water supply. ~e rower interests (~ppos~d public power devdopm~nt of th~ Color~do. The linins: C'Omp3nies objected to federal development Since (he Installat..IOns con- :ructl:'d by the federal ~overnment would contribure nothing to a relief of the tax tMJrdcn the)' were carrying. Uncertainty, however, played a most important role. . . . Viewing rhe Colorado Ri\'er as the state's most irnJXlrtant resource, the lpoL.es.men for Arjzon.a did not wjsh to take precjpitate action they might later rq::rtt. They did not believe the river could be developed without the consent of Ari7.on.1 and that Ariz..ona's only barg;]ining power lay in rdusing to ratify the a..nfUct.u,:, 39 In the years following 1923, opposition to the compact stiffened, losing ju p.1rtis.an flavor and bccoming the "state" position. In 1928 even the Re- publican governor opposed ratification. It ...'ould appear that politicians of hoth parties found political gain in defending Arizona against the compact ~nd ~gainst the California "octopus." Fearful of the compact, and even more fearful of California, Arizona oprosed ti,e Swing, Johnson bills that would have given congressional con- oent to the compact and would have authorized the construction of a high Ibm at Boulder Canyon. Various efforts were made to achieve a settlement brtween the two states, but they foundered, primarily over the division of \nter-cach state wanting more than the other would agree to give. Finally, ~her a long debate, the Senate limited California to 4-4 million acre-feet and enacted ti,e fourth Swing-Johnson bill as the Boulder Canyon Project Act Oil Decemba 21,1928,'0' Thirty-five years later, long after the great Hoover 1>'10 had been built and many other subordinate works put into operation, the act was invoked by tile Supreme Court as the basis-and the sole basis -for its disposition of the Arizona-California water litigation. Upon losing the congressional fight to keep a high dam off the river, Ariz.ona turned to the courts. In its first suit'" Arizona sued the Secretary of tile Interior and all six of the other Colorado River Basin states to enjoin ti,e ~lUilding of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal, to stop the for- ~JIIOn and ~erformance of contracts for delivery of water from the pro- Jectcd reservOIT, and to declare the Colorado River Compact and the Project 167. /d.:11 83-8" (fooUlorcs unlined). ~G~ 45 SUL 1057 (1928), 43 U.S.c. \ 61' (1964). For II brief description of the congressional Y.'a1bu ~C' ~vu~1 SW1Jlg.Jobn~('l11 bills, see Arizona v. CaJiforniOl, 283 U.S. -123, 453-56 (1931); r. r..op.nl.SI4~QD~leI63.:u38-41. l(,g. Arizona v. Californl2, ::~3 U.S. 4=13 (1931). ,