Reasons for Arizona's Opposition to the Swing-Johnson Bill and Santa Fe Compact - Reasons

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Violet

A formal argument outlines why Arizona opposed the Swing-Johnson bill and the Santa Fe Compact, focusing on flood control, drought prevention, and silt elimination for the Imperial Valley and the division of Colorado River benefits. The text challenges California’s claims and alleged ability to secure a monopoly of water and power, arguing the compact created an unfair lower-basin allocation. It weighs prior-appropriation law, compares proposed water shares, and disputes the justification for California’s domestic and irrigation demands.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Reasons

Necessity and scope of flood control and drought prevention

The core issue: division of benefits and power production

Alleged unfair allocation in the lower basin

Competing development and water restraint for Mexico

Prior-appropriation law and lower-basin irrigation potential

Comparative proposals between Arizona and California

97-84078-28Maddock,Thomas Reasons for Arizona'sopposition to the...Phoenix [1927] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBBARIESPRESERVATION DIVISION BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TABGET ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED-EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD RESTRICTIONS ON USE: Reproduclions may not be made without permission from Columbla University Libraries TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: mmREDUCTION RATIO: //:7 MAGE PLACEMENT:IA( DATE FILMED: 5-9-97 INITIALS: KuB TRACKING\#: 23878 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES,BETHLEHEM,PA. 防REASONSFOR ARIZONA's OPPOSITIONTO THE3208Bo×250sANTA FE COMPACTBYWTTH TENTATIVE TRI-STATE COMPACTSUBMITTED TO CALIFORNIA AND NEVADABY ARIZONA cOMMISSIONON FEBRUARY7.1927当PHOENIX.ARIZONA SWING-JOHNSON BILLAND THOMAS MADDOCK AD o341,o.c31 # REASONS FOR ARIZONA'S OPPOSITION TO THESWING-JOHNSON BILL AND SANTA FE COMPACT BY THOMAS MADDOCK There is no dlispute among the states as to the necessity for flood control,drought prevention and silt elimiualon for the Imperial Valley in Califoruia.All of the other slx states in the Colorado basin have repeatedly slown theirwillingnesR to contrihute thelr storage faelltles to relieve California of theexpense of these items.But ench of the six states resents the snhterfuge ofCalifornia mąsking her desires to secure a monopoly of the water and powerof the Colorado Riyer behind her claims for relief from flood,drought,and sllt. I doubt if any engineer wonld serlously contend that a flood invasion intothe Imperinl Valley would endanger life.It did not the last time the riverreturned to the old dry Alamo channel.Arguments regarding silt,drought,food and loss of life are therefore not pertinent. The question at issue is tlhe divislon among the states of the benefits tocome with the storage of water and the prodnetlon of power. It is contended that Arizona was wrong in being the only state to refuseto sign the Santa Fe Compact.As Arizona would be hurt by slgning thatcompact she is justifled in her refusal regardless of the faet that she wafor twhlle alone in her refusal. There is more land adjacent to the Colorado River than water with whichto irrlgnte it.Some land must he desert forever.Unrestrained econouleirrlgatlon development would oceur probably frst in Mexico,then in Californla,Arlzona and lastly Nevada and the four upper basin states of Colorado,XewMexico,Utah and Wyoming. The Santa Fe Compact provides no restraint on Mexleo development andis considered by many authorities to indirectly give her water hy restrieting forforty years the amonnt that may he used in the United States. The Santa Fe Compnct allotted a defnite amount of water to the upperhasin states and nature hns nearly dlvided it for them by the river tributaries,Thelr allotnent is large,prohahly beyond the neede of the states,and they L:.ve an equal competitive chance to secure it.If the paet were sisned theywould not have to worry alont competing in developinent with Mexico,Californin or Arizona. Tle Santa Fe Compnet depends npon the law of prior appropriatlons todivide the water in the lower hasin.Between two and three mnillion acrescan he irrlgated from the main Colorado in the lower hasin after the upperhesin demands are aetliefled.Arlzonn has prlor appropriations for abont twohundred righty thousand acres of this Ineluding over a hundred thousnndaeres in Indian reservatlon. # REASONS FOR ARIZONA'S OPPOSITION Californin is now using about one-quarter of the ultimate supply of thelower basin and cannot increase thls amount without storage In other states,bnt California has fillngs over thirty yenrs old on more water than was awardedithe three lower basin states by the Santa Fe Compact.Callfornia has thepopulation and the wealth to perfeet her approprlatlons and fake the water This means that Arizona with forty-three per cent of the Colorado areaas agnin

FAQs

Why does the document argue that flooding and drought concerns are central to the discussion?

It states there is no dispute among states about the necessity for flood control, drought prevention, and silt elimination for the Imperial Valley, and that earlier river behavior makes certain life-safety arguments not pertinent.

What does the document identify as the main question at issue?

It argues the real issue is how benefits are divided among states regarding storage of water and the production of power.

How does the document claim the Santa Fe Compact unfairly divided water for the lower basin?

It contends California could increase usage using older holdings and appropriations, resulting in Arizona receiving less than a fair share of lower-basin water despite contributing a much larger portion of the Colorado area and flow.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Violet