| OCR Text |
Show ARIZ. EXH. NO. 47 Appendix 212 THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT: REPORT OF S. B. DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER FOR NEW MEXICO January 5, 1923. Hon. James F. Hinkle, Governor of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Dear Sir: There has been filed with the Secretary of State, a duly certified copy of the Colorado River Compact recently signed at Santa Fe by the commissioners representing the United States and the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. This compact is the result of legislative action by the United States and the several states authorizing the appointment of commissioners to form an agreement for the equitable division among the states of the waters of the Colorado River. The New Mexico act is found as Chapter 121 of the Laws of 1921. The Colorado River is the third largest stream in the United States in volume of discharge. Several million acres of land are now irrigated from it, but there is still a very large flow, many million acre-feet, which is unappropriated and unused. All of the states interested have large areas of land on which the water of the river could be used and all have ambitious projects looking to their development. Such a condition necessarily gives rise to interstate conflict. That situation on other interstate streams has caused frequent disputes in the past giving rise to long, tedious, and expensive litigation usually with results unsatisfactory to both parties. So long as the rights to the use of water are doubtful, development is necessarily delayed, for irrigation projects involve large expenditures of money and their success must depend upon the certainty of water supply. The underlying thought behind the compact was the correction of this situation by substituting agreement for litigation and by making an apportionment of the water among the states so that all might know the extent of their rights in advance of the construction of any works. All of the acts which authorize the appointment of commissioners provide that the compact agreed upon must be approved by the Congress of various states before it becomes effective. It is therefore A109 |
| Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde 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, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |
