WSP02650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ \ ------.......-1".. 21-5 LAw OF THE COLORADO RIVER ~ 21.02[1] his scheme in protecting their proposed new canal. Los An- geles also pressed for a high dam as a source of cheap hydro- electric power and as an aid in its endeavors to tap Colorado River water for municipal use. With the partial exception of California (which had adopted a hybrid appropriation and riparian system), the ap- propriation doctrine prevailed in all of the Colorado Basin states. The upper states, particularly Colorado, were alarmed by the potential effect of the Lower Basin's rapid agricultural and municipal development upon their water use, fearing they would be preempted by ,prior water rights perfected by California and Arizona. This anxiety was inten- sified by the Supreme Court's decision in Wyoming v. Colo- rado, 10 which applied the doctrine of prior appropriation to apportion between Wyoming and Colorado the right to use the water of the Laramie River. It was clear that because of their enormous cost, the high dam and all-American canal project could only be under- taken by the federal government. It also became clear that due to opposition from the electrical power industry11 and misgivings in other quarters, congressional approval of the project would depend upon the support, or at least neutral- ity, of the other Basin states. These states, however, were de- termined to resist the project unless they received satisfac- tory assurances of their future use of the water of the River. Each camp was amenable to accommodation. In 1921 Con- gress authorized federal participation in the negotiation of a Compact,12 and each Basin state quickly appointed a com- missioner. They convened in Washington in January 1922, elected the United States representative, then-Secretary of 10259 U.S. 419 (1922). 11 As events unfolded, much of the debate in 1928 over S. 728 and H.R. 5773, which the 70th Congress passed as the Boulder Canyon Project Act. focused upon the electrical power industry and its efforts to thwart any substantial. federally- controlled, hydro-electric plant on the Colorado. Congressman Fiorello LaGuardia declared that: "Opposed to this bill there has been the most vicious, disgraceful, venal lobby that ever existed in the history of the world." 69 Cong. Rec. 9775 (1928). Despite its vehement denials, Utah's congressional delegation was' generally thought to have been in league with the electrical power lobby at the time. 12 See 42 Stat. 171 (1921).