My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07342
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07342
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:26:51 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:16:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
5/19/1997
Author
James S. Lochhead
Title
The Perspective of the State of Colorado in 1922 - Did We get What We Bargained For?
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.
/
28
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 />~" <br /> <br />Colorado River Compact Symposium <br />James S. Lochhead <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />the compact will be the law of the river as between the <br />states. It deals wholly with interstate relations. <br />This paragraph refers to intrastate control. Whatever <br />the intrastate regulation and control may be it cannot <br />effect the interstate relations. No law of any state <br />can have extraterritorial effect or interfere w1~h the <br />operation of the compact as between the states. <br /> <br />In his testimony on the Swing-Johnson bill, after the <br />compact had been negotiated, Carpenter asserted that part of <br />the movement to negotiate the Compact had evolved from the <br />desire to preserve state autonomy. The Upper Basin states <br />saw the Boulder Canyon dam proposal as a --monopolist1~ <br />structure proposed for lower river protection. . . <br />Carpenter summarized the view of the Upper Basin states as <br />to why they were opposed to authorization of the lower basin <br />reservoir without simultaneous ratification of the Compact: <br /> <br />The upper states- have done everything within their <br />power to speedily solve the underlying legal problems <br />involved in the construction of flood control works for <br />the lower river country. They insist that they be <br />afforded the protection of the Colorado River compact, <br />preferably by all seven states, before any further <br />claims attach to the river. <br /> <br />They are not willing to permit their territory to be <br />burdened and their people to be harassed with any such <br />conditions as have prevailed upon the Rio Grande, North <br />Platte and other rivers. In necessary self defense <br />they must resist the construction of any reservoir upon <br />the lowe~8river until their rights have been settled by <br />compact. <br /> <br />Having lost in his bid to insert a federal reservation of <br />rights into the Compact, Hamele urged Congress to include it <br />as a condition to congressional ratification. He testified <br />as to the Swing-Johnson bill: <br /> <br />If the Colorado River Compact is ratified in its <br />present form without any interpretations or <br />reservations, it will make uncertain the rights of the <br />Federal Government. It will be urged by some that the <br />Federal Government has lost whatever right it did have <br />to the unappropriated waters of that basin, and that it <br /> <br />26 <br />27 Supplemental Report. <br />Statement for the upper Colorado River States regarding <br />Bill for Boulder Canon Dam, before Committee on Irrigation <br />and Reclamation of the House of Representatives, Washington <br />B8e., 1926. <br />Id. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.