OCR Text |
Show 22 Despite general recognition of the need for a storage reservoir to regulate and control the River there was a political obstacle in the path of such a project. The Upper Basin states, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, were apprehensive that construction of storage facilities on the mainstream would permit a rapid expansion of irrigation and other uses in the Lower Basin and form the basis for claims of appropriative rights in the water, which would preclude its availability for the more slowly developing needs of the Upper Basin.79 The doctrine of prior appropriation governed water rights at the time, as it does now, in all Basin states except California, and there it was, and is, significant.80 To relieve the apprehension of the Upper Basin, the affected states requested and the Congress passed the Act ous applicants their due proportion of the power privileges and to allocate the cost and benefits of a high-line canal. 6. It is recommended that every development hereafter authorized to be undertaken on the Colorado River by Federal Government or otherwise be required in both construction and operation to give priority of right and use: First. To river regulation and flood control. Second. To use of storage water for irrigation. Third. To development of power." Ariz. Ex. 45, p. 21. "Special Master's Ex. No. 4, The Hoover Dam Documents, pp. A65, A80, A123. 80See Clough v. Wing, 2 Ariz. 371, 17 Pac. 453 (1888); Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882); Jones v. Adams, 19 Nev. 78, 6 Pac. 442 (1885); Albuquerque Land and Irrigation Co. v. Gutierrez, 10 N.M. 177, 61 Pac. 357 (1900), aff'd sub nom. Guiterrez v. Albuquerque Land and Irrigation Co., 188 U. S. 545 (1903); Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah 215, 26 Pac. 290 (1891) ; Moyer v. Preston, 6 Wyo. 308,44 Pac. 845 (1896). See also United States v. Gerlach Livestock Co., 339 U. S. 725, 746 (1950); California Oregon P. Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142, 154-157 (1935) ; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 459 (1922). Compare Irwin v. Phillips, 5 Cal. 140, 63 Am. Dec. 113 (1855) with Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 4 Pac. 919 (1884). See also Calif. Const, art. XIV, § 3. |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California |