WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.- [Vol. '9: Page I eme Court on the ) dismiss. Holding se of congressional d the bill without .rated so as to inter. .he parties, the caSe : first time, upheld lorize construction Ie CoUrt preserved it recognized that er would also be 'cr. On this foun. 'low, thus destroy. ng that there Was n was under con, such interference lawsuit to come , lY relating to her :e, Arizona relied testimony favor_ III (b) water was s dismissed, one ould be inadmis. ct. began on Parker t. (The aqueduct r per year to the :tion of the dam, . , IZona s governor an injunction in at Congress had cision Congress her troops. :quitable appor- nited States had nissed the com- ~ .1Iil th~ Rule oj THE COLORADO R/l'ER ~."anhcr ,#] . ..th ut reaching the merits, holding that joinder of the United r!1,nt \I I 0 s: ... waS indispensable. . . . al . th rendition of this judgment, Anzona found herself stymIed. l'pon e . ' . '1 th U . d 5 d b Id cure no J'udlClal relief untJ e mte tates consente to e Shecou sc d . Co dh d un! Sh had not ratified the Colora 0 River mpact an a no contract · f' I' e Mo' of water from Lake Mead. Her rival, California, on the other f,t"cI\e., I' f f th . I h d contracts calling for the de Ivery 0 water rom e mam stream lun.. a f' m d k '.r. 536' million acre-feet 0 consumpl1ve use per year, an wor l\> s.atl") . - .' . h' h b . "fo~"ard in Califorma on projects w 1C would ena Ie her to ",'.' J:Olno .. , nuLc full use of this water.'" F nearl}' ten years Arizona was beset by drought and racked with dis- ur f 'mTh . I I' f ICn.ion o"er the proper course 0 actIOn. e agncu tura mterests 0 1..1 Arizona suffered greatly from lack of water but also feared the ~:a that compact ratification might have on. the Gila supply. Finally, Ari- C "na did what she had to do-she ratified the compact and obtained a con- ~acl for the delivery of water from the main stream to supply 2.8 million . l1i aoc,(ccl of consumpl1ve use per year. l1nCorrunately for Arizona, a contract for water and the actual receipt of water are two very different things. For another ten years she struggled in ,'ain ro obtain federal authorization and financing of the works neees- Ur}. to bring water to her central farming region. Every step of the way she ,,'as fought by California, who had a telling argument in the enormous cost of ti,e Central Arizona Project-roughly one billion dollars. Bills to au- thorize the project were introduced in the 79th, 80th, 8ISt, and 82d Con- J;fCSloC5, and, while some passed in the Senate, all failed in the House, where C2liCornia was immensely more powerful than Arizona. The endless squabbling must have tried the patienee of Congressmen frum other states. For that reason and probably because of genuine un will- in!:ncss to consider a project of such magnitude when rights to the water i'I\'u!l'cd were in dispute, the responsible House committee resolved in r95r tI,al consideration of the Central Arizona Project "be postponed until such time as use of the water in the lower Colorado River Basin is either adjudi- (Olcd or a binding and mutual agreement as to the use of the water is reached b)' tile States of the lower Colorado River Basin."'" For thirty years the states had been unable to reach agreement, and no c\'iJcnce exists of a serious effort to do so after the committee's resolution. 4' .76. M4II"'1 RePort 208. a". /d. ar 33.35. ]6-38, 65-66. I,t!. M"NN', op. nl. INprD note 1.64. at 86-88. '79. The Arizona coDtr..a, which is ap~ndil 5' of the Masur's Report, war. signed February n, 't...... h.. 'l:ft'ectiycneu was conditioned by pangrapb 14 upon Arizona's ratification of the compact. I. due COUJ'It, the Arizona legislature r.u:i1ied both the CODtr.lct and the compact. Act of Feb. 34. ""'. Ariz. l...o1W1 1944. ch. 4. at 419 (contract), cb. 5. at 4.21 (compact). .10. MlUttT's R~port J32 D.'.