| OCR Text |
Show 96 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER The Supreme Court had dismissed the 1931 Arizona bill on motion of the Federal Government and the other six basin states. It held the Project Act valid, but did not pass on the validity of the Compact, saying that Arizona was not a party to it. In 1934, Arizona had sought to perpetuate the testi- mony of the negotiators of the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Leave to file the bill was denied by the Supreme Court on grounds that the testimony would be inad- missible. In 1935, the United States sought to stop Arizona from preventing the construction of Parker Dam with military force, that is, Arizona State Militia. The in- junction was denied by the court, but legislation swiftly passed by Congress overcame the difficulty. In 1936, Arizona sued for an equitable apportion- ment of the Colorado River waters. Leave to file the bill was denied by the Supreme Court on the ground that the United States was a necessary party. This ruling was the basis of the present resolution to make the United States a party to a court suit to settle the controversy. Ely pointed out the three basic conflicts which stood in the way of an agreement between Arizona and Cali- fornia. The first was the controversy over how the water used by the states should be measured. Arizona contended she should be charged only for the amount her uses depleted the flow of the Gila River into the main stream of the Colorado. This was the "depletion theory," her own invention. California demanded that the "consumptive use theory" be used, that is, measure- ment of uses by diversions less returns to the river. The difference in result between the two theories amounted to |
