OCR Text |
Show 278 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER maneuver. Now it seems to be backfiring. All that Sen. McFarland has to show is a right of way for a dry canal. He had better pray for rain or a new inspiration." 405 If McFarland and Murdock had hoped the aqueduct scheme would help them, other Arizona officials saw it for what it was, a cheap political trick which would have little if any effect on the situation. The death of Charles A. Carson, for so many years the leading water counsel for Arizona, had brought new men into the picture, and they were not as much concerned with helping McFarland and Murdock as they were in saving the Central Arizona Project. They realized the need for drastic action, and they took it. Suddenly and without warning Arizona itself turned to the Supreme Court. After years of blocking every effort of California to secure adjudication of the issue, Arizona reversed itself. It had always been Carson's contention that Cali- fornia was forever limited to the use of 4,400,000 acre- feet of Colorado River water per year. Now Arizona charged that California was using in excess of the amount of river water to which it was legally entitled. That was the cornerstone of the Arizona suit. On August 13, 1952, Arizona filed its action against California, and told the court: 406 "By act of its legislature California has limited its right to water apportioned by the Colorado River Com- pact to 4,400,000 acre-feet annually. This limitation was made for the benefit of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. |