California takes water from the Colorado River in accordance with the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1927, which superceded the allocations agreed upon in the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The 1922 Compact had been reached by the seven states through which the river flows. As part of the Boulder Dam (now Hoover Dam) project, Congress set the apportionment of the River’s water among the lower basin states (AZ, CA, NV) and gave the Secretary of the Interior the power to control distribution according to the legislation. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that the allocations did not include lower basin tributary waters (California v. Arizona, 373 U.S. 546 (1963)) which you can read at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=373&invol=546 (it includes a very comprehensive exploration of the history of the division of the water in that lower basin). For a very interesting example of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (as opposed to its jursidiction to review lower cases), read the decree issued at 376 U.S. 340 in the same case.
Under the 1927 Act, the state of California is allocated 4.4 million acre feet of the first 7.5 maf of ‘mainstream’ waters, and divides with Arizona on a 50/50 basis any additional such waters.
Riparian rights to downstream waters vested in the lower basin states are, I believe, still governed by the 1922 Compact, though I can’t find the case that covered that issue.
If California secceded from the Union, presumably there would have to be a re-allocation of the waters of what would become an international boundary. For an example of that type of agreement, one can look at the treaties covering use of the Danube River in Europe.
Why look as far as Europe? Texas (and the rest of the US, I guess) share the Rio Grande with Mexico and two reserviors: Amistad and Falcon. It’s not a terribly difficult feat and probably the least of CA’s worries should it try to secede.
Also–and I’ve been following this discussion, hoping that someone would bring this up–the issue of the legality of secession seems moot. If it was legal, all that would mean was that a bloodless secession (a la Quebec maybe someday?) would be possible. But: it was “illegal” for Texas to secede from Mexico, but we did it anyway. It’s “illegal” for Chechnya to secede from Russia–but that’s not stopping them from trying!
What about succession of a town? A few years back, a portion of Port Chester NY, secceeded from the town. They called themslves the village of Rye Brook (Rye NY is a very wealthy adjacent town). Well, the benefits were tremendous-homeowners saw the valure of their houses rise 300-400%, and their taxes dropped (they were no longer payeing to educate the illegal aliens in Port Chjester. How does one go about this?
Municipal secessions vary from state to state. In California, after you jump over a million different bureaucratic hurdles, there is a vote on that matter. Here, the secession has to be approved by a majority of voters in the seceding part and in the old city/county as a whole.
Parts of Los Angeles are trying to secede (the San Fernando Valley as well as the harbor districts of San Pedro and Wilmington). Their secession votes have not been put on any ballot yet and may never get there.
If Texas were to successfully secede, I get the impression that one if its first acts as an independent country would be to declare war on Mexico.
Texas was independent for 9 years before joining the United States. I read somewhere that, as a provision for statehood, Texas received the right to secede any time it wanted. If so, the U.S. didn’t honor it.
Back when Texas was having economic problems due mostly to the dropping price of oil, the savings & loan scandals, and the fire at the chemical plant that makes anti-freeze, I read an article that stated if Texas was an independent country, it would have the world’s ninth largest economy. Sorry, no cite.
Sure. The bulk demographic of the state is nearly 50% hispanic. Mexican trade is one of the staples of our economy. If we re-became independent, the first thing we’d do is disembowel ourselves, burn our intestines, then dance the “Cucaracha” on the flames.
It couldn’t be the ‘Peoples’ Republic of Texas’, as they wouldn’t tolerate Communism;
note that all nation-states with ‘peoples Republic’ are communist in one form or another!
VB
Remember, you can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish!
One thang that allus’ chapped mah hide was th’ fact that Californians have “Bear Republic” or something like that on their state flag, when it was Texas that was the only state to actually enter the US as an independent country (with the possible exception of Hawaii? But maybe that would be an example of conquered territory rather than incorporation by treaty?) And only Texas was recognized by European powers of the time as a country, with diplomats exchangin’ credentials an’ everthin’.
As for declaring war on Mexico, I always had the impression that it was California that had the much more hostile attitude toward our southern neighbors.
The California flag says “California Republic” and California was an independent republic for a few days, at least in the eyes of some people. However, California was never a US Territory. It skipped that step.
Hawaii was an independent kingdom and then a republic and then it was annexed by the US in 1898 and made a territory.
As for California’s attitude toward Mexico, it was quite hostile during the governorship of Pete Wilson. Wilson was able to foment fear of illegal immigrants (many of whom are from countries other than Mexico) for political gain. The present governor, Gray Davis, has made a lot of trips to Mexico to try to improve relations.
Texas has a better relationship with Mexico because it has more voters of Mexican descent and politically, you have to be friendlier.
However, if either California or Texas ever were independent countries they would still be hard-pressed to find ways to pay for things like mental health, welfare, medical care for the indigent, etc. without the use of any Federal dollars.
La Cucaracha is a song with no associated dance that I am aware of. You may be thinking of The Mexican Hat Dance which would be appropriate for dancing on said flaming intestines.
The weirdness of a folk song about reefer smoking vermin has always puzzled me. Still I have warm memories of it as my nana would sing it to me as a child.
La Cucaracha is a dance that mimics the frantic stomping of many insects of the same name. The Mexican Hat Dance has order to it. Trust me. I know these things. I live on the border.
Well, I live on the border, but I’m lying about the rest.
(and just so that this is not a gratuitous post, but a response of some sort to the topic at hand…)
Texas and California could do just fine without Federal money. If the federal income taxes that the citizens of each of our fine states stayed home (rather than help subsidize places like–ugh!–Oklahoma), we could easily fund our domestic programs. What would hurt are several local economies: for example, Killeen-Copperas Cove (Fort Hood, NATO’s largest base), San Antonio (what? three AF bases and one Army base), Witchita Falls (Sheppard AFB), and a couple of others. We could get around this, though, by joining NATO and letting American troops contiune to occupy these bases (as per Germany). That’s of course assuming that we still remain allies with the US (but, hey! Germany did it!)
Which brings up an interesting question, at least to my mind: would la Republica de Tejas and the People’s Commune of Califoria still conform to their current borders, or would they be able to expand into “Greater Texas” and “Greater California”? Assuming that the Feds were complaisant about the whole deal (a bit “if”, of course), I could imagine Oklahoma applying to join Texas. Nor would that be a bad deal, necessarily: IIRC, OK still has quite a bit of oil money and Indian-run casinos that are raking in the bucks. I say Texas and Oklahoma should join forces and beat the shit out of Arkansas! Make it into a colony.
As for Greater California, wouldn’t Nevada and Oregon be a natural fit?
Apologies for the profanity–I guess I was carried away by the heady airs of nationalism. Also, a qualified “sorry” to our bretheren in Arkansas; though you do realize that you may have to expect some kind of period of atonement for the nation’s experience of the past eight years.
If California were a separate country, any president of California would have a difficult time holding the state together. The northern and southern halves of the state have little in common and don’t particularly like each other.
Washington and Oregon residents would most likely commit ritual suicide before aligning themselves with anything that even smells of California.
You’ve obviously not spoken with many native Texans. Or native Oklahomans, either.
Before Texas joined the U.S., its original area was even larger than it is now: the Panhandle stretched all the way into what is now southern Wyoming. (Texans also wanted to claim territory west to Santa Fe, but Santa Fe declined.) The U.S. reduced Texas to its present boundaries upon admission. If Texas were to secede, would it demand all of its original land back?
BTW, I probably should have elaborated earlier: despite their friendly demeanor, most Texans have a very hostile attitude toward “furriners”. They’re also very military-minded. They also know their history, which includes raids by Santa Anna and Pancho Villa. That, combined with some of the froth-mouthed politicians we’re stuck with, can result in a very war-like nation, if Texas becomes independent. Knowing that attacking the U.S. would be suicide, Mexico would probably be the first choice. After all, there’s oil down there. This doesn’t mean I approve, only that I think it could happen.
And at the time, I was thinking of Gallagher’s line, “Texans don’t mind Mexicans, they just want the land that comes with them.”
This is no doubt true (to an extent). Once you get past Southern California into Central and Northern California, the cultural differences between the north and south become evident.
I can see Central Californians around the southern border of Monterey, Inyo, Tulare, and Kings counties (all of which have a nice straight southern border that would be a great dividing line for two different states) possibly aligning themselves more with Northern california than Southern (possibly even demanding to be a part of their own state).
Listening to the complaints of Southern Californians at my college (in Central California) rant about how much this isn’t Southern California, I too wouldn’t mind being separated from them ;). Suffice to say many (not all) have a superior attitude when it comes to northern vs. southern California.
A lot of northern Californians who know about how LA aquired water from Owens Valley in Inyo valley have created a lot of bitter feelings for LA by people from northern and Central California. For a while LA was draining so much water from Mono Lake’s feeder rivers that the lake level droped and started to get more briny than it should (which affects the lakes ecology, Mono Lake is an important feeding ground for migratory birds). From this site: http://www.ladwp.com/water/supply/aqua.htm,it shows LA and Southern California gets a lot of water from Northern, and Central California.
That is just one thing that makes some Northern and Central Californians bitter about LA and Southern California in general. Anyway, a lot of people i’ve talked to would rather LA not have any of it at all.
PBS also had an interesting show about the situation, which was called something like “Cadillac Desert”, IIRC.
It’s worth the risk of burning, to have a second chance…
The US is arguably just as warlike, and we fer darn sure remember that the Redcoats once burned down the White House. Watch your backs, you Limeys!
That’s like saying that Texas could put a gun in its mouth, or on the other hand slit its wrists. What possible reason would we have to attack our largest trading partner?
Oh, yeah, and there isn’t oil up here?
Citing the wisdom of Gallagher, huh? I think I’ll let that little tidbit speak for itself.
Doghouse: you’ll note that fellow Texan John Rush lists Austin as its home. Austinites are notorious for thinking that the rest of Texans are–unlike themselves–warlike, xenophobic, rednecks. So: he can be forgiven; his mind is obviously clouded from spending too much time in thick liberal Austin humidity!
The perception that Texans are “warlike” and would be itchin’ to declare war on somebody is absurd. Texans may be more millitia-minded in the sense of self-defense of home and state, but it doesn’t naturally follow that the next step would be an invasion of Mexico. Again, as several have mentioned (including me), the state is almost mostly Mexican and Mexico is our #1 trading partner.
Regarding “Greater Texas”, recall that in the days of Coahuila y Tejas, the Tejas part began at the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande. Likewise, the Trans-Pecos as well as the portions of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming were not original Tejas. After independence, Texas claimed these territories but never settled them and they remained in dispute. The Mexican-American war, besides sucking in California and the rest of the southwest (sans the territory south of the Gila River) into the American bosom, is what it took to establish the Rio Grande as the southern boundary. The U.S. secured the “Greater Texas” territory, too, and then recognized Texas’ claims, but made a deal: if Texas relinquished these claims to the US, then the US would take care of our debts. Done!
The problem I’d forsee for a state like
California to secede lies in the issue of Federal lands. Unlike Texas, which has next to nil (another provision of our annexation), CA is loaded with 'em. CA’s first step would have to be the transfer of these lands to the state (like Nevada’s been trying to do forever), then try and split. Or, hell! Just take 'em!
Wow, you reminded me of a lot of stuff I had forgotten since taking “Texas History” in eighth grade. Come to think of it, didn’t some Republic of Texas adventurers meet a sorry end in Monterey after trying to expand the borders even further south?
I’m not sure where Alpine is, but you mentioned that you’re on the border. Are the Mexican-Americans (or just plain Mexicans) that you encounter down there very sensitive about the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and all that? How do they feel the US generally and Texas in particular?
Jeez, I just realized that perhaps you yourself are Mexican-American–ethnocentrism is a pernicious thing, isn’t it? Anyway, I’d be interested in your take on things.
