Problems of the Colorado River as Reflected in Arizona Politics
| Author | N.D. Houghton |
| Published date | 01 December 1951 |
| Date | 01 December 1951 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/106591295100400408 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
634
PROBLEMS
OF
THE
COLORADO
RIVER
AS
REFLECTED
IN
ARIZONA
POLITICS
N.
D.
HOUGHTON
University
of
Arizona
HIS
ARTICLE
is
confined
to
consideration
of
the
repercussions
of
t
Colorado
River
problems
upon
domestic
politics
in
Arizona,
referring
only
incidentally
and
secondarily
to
the
more
spectacularly
publicized
interstate
aspects
of
those
problems.
Basic
background
facts,
which
must
be
recalled
here,
are
presented
in
order
to
make
possible
a
clear,
brief
depiction
of
some
of
the
influences
of
the
River
situation
upon
political
behavior
in
Arizona.
The
interstate
and
the
Arizona
controversies
about
Colorado
River
water
are
closely
associated
with
the
Colorado
River
Compact
of
1922,
which
was
designed
to
make
basic
legal
provision
for
future
apportionment
of
water
among
the
seven
so-called
&dquo;Colorado
River
Basin&dquo;
states.
Funda-
mentally,
the
Santa
Fe
Conference
was
the
result
of
increasing
apprehen-
sion
in
the
upper
states
that
prospective
large-scale
water
uses
in
California
and
Arizona
might
jeopardize
upper-state
water
supply
for
consumption
not
then
under
specific
contemplation,
but
which
it
was
hoped
might
ulti-
mately
be
developed.
Because
of
pressure
from
the
Southwest,
Congress,
in
the
summer
of
1921,
authorized
the
seven
states
to
enter
into
a
compact
for
&dquo;an
equitable
division
and
apportionment
among
said
states
of
the
water
supply
of
the
Colorado
River
and
of
the
streams
tributary
thereto.&dquo;
A
Colorado
River
Commission,
composed
of
representatives
from
the
seven
states
and
Secretary
Hoover,
who
was
appointed
by
the
President,
met
at
Santa
Fe
in
the
fall
of
1922.
Lack
of
definite
data
on
the
amount
of
water
available
from
the
River
and
on
feasible
irrigation
projects
in
the
various
states
made
it
impractical
to
agree
upon
any
specific
apportionment
among
them.
The
general
agreement
finally
reached
was
to
the
effect
that
the
estimated
water
flow
be
split
on
approximately
a
50-50
basis
between
the
four
so-
called
upper-basin
states,’
as
a
group,
and
the
three
lower-basin
states,2
2
as
a
group.
The
agreement
stipulated
that
an
average
yearly
flow
of
7,500,000
acre-feet
was
to
pass
to
the
lower
stream
area.3
3
Arizona’s
representative
at
the
conference
objected
to
this
basic
agreement
on
two
grounds:
(1)
He
desired
a
definite
allotment
of
water
to
each
state,
and
(2)
he
objected
to
inclusion
of
the
Gila
River
water
1
Colorado,
Utah,
Wyoming
and
New
Mexico.
2
California,
Arizona
and
Nevada.
3
The
agreement
was
that
75,000,000
acre-feet
should
pass
during
each
ten-year
period,
no
minimum
annual
flow
being
specified.
To continue reading
Request your trial