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 />17 <br /> <br />interstate law. When asked by Hoover ifhe denied the whole theory of priority <br />of utilization as between states, Carpenter replied, "Emphatically!" <br />Construction of works in the Lower Basin, b~sed on a claim of priority, would <br />bring about extensive litigation and if the federal government built the works, <br />the Upper River would be prevented further development. In Carpenter's <br />view, this was proven by the government's Pathfinder Dam in Wyoming on <br />the North Platte River. <br />What Carpenter wanted in a compact was a quid pro quo: because the <br />upper basin states furnished "the greater part" of water used by all seven <br />states and Mexico and because he was convinced that by national and <br />international law they had a property right to this water, the Lower Basin <br />should guarantee "freedom from attack" if the Upper Basin was willing to <br />assure to the Lower Basin a reasonable limitation on "wholly consumptive <br />use." The Upper Basin would stand firm, Carpenter insisted, on the principle <br />that "the construction of any works shall in no manner interfere with the <br />development of the territory of any of the Upper States, or the use of the water <br />therein, and said works shall not have any preferred right of title to the use of <br />water of said stream as against Upper States." <br />Carpenter believed that if the Upper Basin were guaranteed proper <br />protection in the form of non-interference for 50-] 00 years, it did not matter <br />how many reservoirs were built in the Lower Basin. "[W]e realize that <br />development on the lower river is imminent," he said, "and to a degree [we] <br />are willing to forego demands that we might justly make in order to bring that <br />about. " <br />When the commissioners failed to accept limitation of acreage or water <br />as a basis for the compact, however, Hoover expressed doubt that they would <br />ever be able to agree on a "general single idea for a compact." He questioned <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.