Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/300091
Title:
Politics and the Colorado River
Author:
Steiner, Wesley E.
Affiliation:
Arizona Water Commission, Phoenix, Arizona
Issue Date:
23-Apr-1971
Rights:
Copyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author.
Collection Information:
This article is part of the Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest collections. Digital access to this material is made possible by the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science and the University of Arizona Libraries. For more information about items in this collection, contact anashydrology@gmail.com.
Publisher:
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science
Journal:
Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest
Abstract:
The Colorado River is the only major stream in the U.S. whose water supply is fully utilized. This distinction has brought the Colorado more than its share of controversy, within states, between states and between nations. The Colorado River compact, whose purpose was to equitably apportion the waters between the upper and lower basins and to provide protection for the upper basin through water reservation, was ratified by all states except Arizona, in 1923. Arizona finally ratified it in 1944. The history of controversies and negotiation concerning the compact are outlined through the supreme court decision on march 9, 1964, which entitled California to 4.4 maf, Nevada to 0.3 maf and Arizona to 2.8 maf, of the first 7.5 maf available in the lower Colorado. Unfortunately, the court did not attempt to establish priorities in the event of shortage. The problem is complicated by an international treaty of 1944, guaranteeing Mexico 1.5 maf annually, except in years of unusual circumstances. Because Senator Connally of Texas was then chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and because the treaty allocated twice as much Colorado River water to Mexico as it was then using, it was argued that this treaty represented a tradeoff to Mexico, giving it less water from the Rio Grande in exchange for more water from the overburdened Colorado. Problems of inter-basin water transfer studies, uniform Colorado basin water quality standards and central Arizona project planning are discussed.
Keywords:
Water resources development -- Arizona.; Hydrology -- Arizona.; Hydrology -- Southwestern states.; Water resources development -- Southwestern states.; Colorado River compact; Colorado River basin; Political aspects; International waters; Arid lands; Arizona; California; Wyoming; New Mexico; Colorado; Utah; Nevada; Inter-basin transfers; Water law; Pacific Northwest U. S.; Mexico; Water allocation (policy); Legal aspects; Central Arizona project
ISSN:
0272-6106

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titlePolitics and the Colorado Riveren_US
dc.contributor.authorSteiner, Wesley E.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentArizona Water Commission, Phoenix, Arizonaen_US
dc.date.issued1971-04-23-
dc.rightsCopyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author.en_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThis article is part of the Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest collections. Digital access to this material is made possible by the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science and the University of Arizona Libraries. For more information about items in this collection, contact anashydrology@gmail.com.en_US
dc.publisherArizona-Nevada Academy of Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.journalHydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwesten_US
dc.description.abstractThe Colorado River is the only major stream in the U.S. whose water supply is fully utilized. This distinction has brought the Colorado more than its share of controversy, within states, between states and between nations. The Colorado River compact, whose purpose was to equitably apportion the waters between the upper and lower basins and to provide protection for the upper basin through water reservation, was ratified by all states except Arizona, in 1923. Arizona finally ratified it in 1944. The history of controversies and negotiation concerning the compact are outlined through the supreme court decision on march 9, 1964, which entitled California to 4.4 maf, Nevada to 0.3 maf and Arizona to 2.8 maf, of the first 7.5 maf available in the lower Colorado. Unfortunately, the court did not attempt to establish priorities in the event of shortage. The problem is complicated by an international treaty of 1944, guaranteeing Mexico 1.5 maf annually, except in years of unusual circumstances. Because Senator Connally of Texas was then chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and because the treaty allocated twice as much Colorado River water to Mexico as it was then using, it was argued that this treaty represented a tradeoff to Mexico, giving it less water from the Rio Grande in exchange for more water from the overburdened Colorado. Problems of inter-basin water transfer studies, uniform Colorado basin water quality standards and central Arizona project planning are discussed.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.subjectColorado River compacten_US
dc.subjectColorado River basinen_US
dc.subjectPolitical aspectsen_US
dc.subjectInternational watersen_US
dc.subjectArid landsen_US
dc.subjectArizonaen_US
dc.subjectCaliforniaen_US
dc.subjectWyomingen_US
dc.subjectNew Mexicoen_US
dc.subjectColoradoen_US
dc.subjectUtahen_US
dc.subjectNevadaen_US
dc.subjectInter-basin transfersen_US
dc.subjectWater lawen_US
dc.subjectPacific Northwest U. S.en_US
dc.subjectMexicoen_US
dc.subjectWater allocation (policy)en_US
dc.subjectLegal aspectsen_US
dc.subjectCentral Arizona projecten_US
dc.identifier.issn0272-6106-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/300091-
dc.identifier.journalHydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwesten_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeProceedingsen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.