| OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER COMPACT 59 New Mexico, Act of March 17, 1925 (Laws 1925, p. 116; N.M. Stat. 1953 Ann., sec. 75-34-3 note). Utah, Act of March 6, 1929 (Laws 1929, p. 25), on which see 36 Op. Atty. Gen. 72 (1929), holding this act in conformity with the requirements of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Wyoming, Act of February 25, 1925 (Sess. L. 1925, p. 85; Wyo. Stat. 1957, sec. 41-505). The foregoing citations are to the final ratifications by the States concerned. Those of California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming contained a waiver of the seven-State approval provi- sion of Article XI of the compact. For earlier ratifications of the compact as a seven-State instrument, see Cal. Stat. 1923, p. 1530; Cal. Stats. 1929, p. 1; Colo. Sess. L. 1923, p. 684; Nev. Stat. 1923, p. 393; N. Mex. Laws 1923, p. 7; Utah Laws, 1923, p. 4; Wyo. Sess. L. 1923, p. 3. And, for earlier ratifications of the compact as a six-State instru- ment, see Cal. Stats. 1925, p. 1321; Utah Laws 1925, p. 127, repealed Utah Laws 1927, p. 1. Related legislation.-In addition to the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057), sections 4(a), 6, 8, 13 and 18, see the Acts of August 30,1935 (49 Stat. 1028,1039) (Headgate Rock dam, Arizona), July 30, 1947 (61 Stat. 628) (Gila project, Arizona), October 11,1951 (65 Stat. 404) (San Diego Aqueduct, California), July 3, 1952 (66 Stat. 325) (Collbran project, Colorado), August 31, 1954 (68 Stat. 1045) (Palo Verde weir, California), April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105) (Colorado River storage project and participating projects), Sep- tember 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1726) (Boulder City, Nevada), June 13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96) (Navajo and San Juan-Chama projects, New Mexico- Colorado), August 6, 1962 (76 Stat. 389) (Fryingpan-Arkansas proj- ect, Colorado), September 2,1964 (78 Stat. 848) (Dixie project, Utah), October 22,1965 (79 Stat. 1068) (Southern Nevada project, Nevada), and September 30,1968 (82 Stat. 885) (Colorado River Basin project). Section 6 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, cited in the preceding paragraph, provides that Hoover dam shall be used "First, for river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic uses and satisfaction of present perfected rights in pursuance of Article VIII of said Colorado River compact ; and third, for power." See Arizona v. California, pp. 531, 534f, post on the relation between this provision and Article IV, paragraph (a), of the Colorado River Compact. Litigation.-In addition to the four cases entitled Arizona v. Cali- fornia, pp. 531 ff post, all of which involve aspects of the Colorado River Compact, see United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174 (1935), dealing with the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to con- struct Parker Dam on the Colorado River. Departmental decisions.-Solicitor's opinion M. 28389 (April 4, 1936), advising that the Colorado River Compact authorizes the diver- sion of water from the natural watershed into another watershed "if the diverted water is to be used within the boundaries of the States through which the Colorado River system extends and * * * if the amount of that diversion does not create a use of Colorado River water in excess of that allowed by the provisions of the compact." See also Solicitor's opinion dated August 30, 1934 (54 I.D. 593), advising that |
