Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />