My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04958
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04958
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:16:19 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:46:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
8/1/1997
Author
Daniel Tyler
Title
Delpheus Emory Carpenter and the Colorado River Compact of 1922
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />(January, 1922), therefore, Carpenter stated that the "prime objective of the <br />creation of this Commission was to avoid future litigation among the states <br />interested in the Colorado River and [to plan] the utilization of the benefits to <br />be obtained from its water supply. "36 His hope was to "settle in advance those <br />matters which would otherwise be brought into court;" in other words, "to <br />settle the title to the river before structures [were] placed thereupon. ,,37 <br />But the discussions in Washington were not well focused. They centered <br />on how many new acres each state planned to place under production. Even <br />with an estimated average annual flow at Yuma of 17,300,000 acre-feet, a <br />figure based on recorded flows between 1899 and 1920, Commission <br />Chairman Herbert Hoover knew that the river would be bankrupt <br />if each state were apportioned water sufficient to irrigate the acreages they <br />claimed for future development.38 None of the states wanted to accept <br />limitations. A compact based on the acreage limitation principle would not <br />and could not succeed. <br />Understanding this, Carpenter chose to illuminate his colleagues with <br />information and theories gained from ten years of thinking about interstate <br />compacts. He pointed out that the Upper Basin could never beneficially use <br />even an "equitable part" of the waters rising in and flowing within each state <br />due to the unique topography of this area. Whatever water could be used in the <br />Upper Basin belonged to the states of origin. By law, these states did not have <br />to relinquish it to the Lower Basin. But an unreasonable exercise of state <br />sovereignty by the Upper Basin would not only violate the spirit of comity, but <br />might also result in the intervention of the Supreme Court. Likewise, if the <br />Lower Basin established a claim to large amounts of water from the Upper <br />Basin based on prior appropriation, this would amount to a "taking" or <br />"involuntary extraterritorial servitude" frowned upon by international and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.