|
<br />
<br />Pacific lAw Journal I Vol. 19
<br />
<br />~In 1984, Waler Code sC'Cfion 1012 was added to provide:
<br />NOI.....ilhslandinl any olhl!'r provision or law, wfterl!' any person,
<br />pubhc all!'ney. or Agtney or .hl!' Uniltd Slall!'S undertakes an)' waler
<br />constrvation crrort. eilhl!'r separllely or joinlly .....jlh others entilled
<br />to delivery or wOller horn Ihe Colorado River under conlrlllcn .....jlh
<br />Ihe Unilcd STalcs, .....hich re..ulls in reduced use or Colorado River
<br />waler within Ihe Imperial Irrisalion Dislrlct. no rorreilure. dimi-
<br />nUlian. or impairment or the righ1 to u~c the w;tler consl!'rvcd shall
<br />occur. eJlccpl a~ set rOMh in Ihe 3sreemcnls bn.....ecn lhe paMies and
<br />Ihe Unilcd SI3ICS."" .
<br />
<br />Thl!' legisJalive imen[ may have been 10 overrule a prior California
<br />waler raw rule which provided that an unused appropriative righr
<br />may be losl. To make surl!' IhOlt (he new seelion was (rury a raulology
<br />Ihe legislalure added seclion 2 to Ihe 1984 SlalUle: .
<br />Thl!' Lelislllure rinds and declares thai Ihe en:lctml!'nl of Seelion
<br />1012 or the Water Code is intended to dariry and makl!' specific
<br />ellis/ing Calirornia la..... in regard 10 ......ter consl!'rvacion measures
<br />which may be l:lkl!'n ,.,.jthin Ihe Imperial Valley. In enlllcting Section
<br />1012 or Ihe Water Code, il is nOI the inlenl or lhe usislalure 10
<br />.her the r~lalion!ohip or state and reder..l law, as each may apply
<br />10 Ihe di!otribution and use or Colorado River waler.'"
<br />
<br />These, Ihen. are Ihe provisions or COllirornia law upon which
<br />Imperial relics ror its insistence thai il may sell so-called conserved
<br />wafer to any party oUlside iu boundaries. We should now lurn 10
<br />the qucstion or whelher Calirornia law applies al all.
<br />
<br />1988 / California Colorado R;v~r Issues
<br />
<br />D. California v~r.su.s Fed~rallAw
<br />
<br />II'. 19'4 CII. Sill, ch. 4%9. ~. I." 1105.06 Cmxtin, C.u. W"nl Con. 110121. II
<br />.h_ld be n~cod. ho"'COUT. INIl 'Inee 1943. Calirornil w.ltr Codt uction 100' CODllllln. I
<br />"mllll p.otnlOn:
<br />An) li,.kl \~ tM. ....u.1:t o{ In, "'ta", wkich, no..... lion, I toound.ary or lhe Slale
<br />Ind "h,,;h II lhe: ~ubJC'C1 or an Inle"tllt eoltJpaa lit whio:h Iht SllIlt is I pari,. 10
<br />thr COlrnl ,uch fl,hl rcolllO 10 qulnlilt" ot ....ller .hich lire Unilfd SI';III" hu
<br />und\'T the aUlhor.il.' ", an ~CI Dr Conll'cou. conlr.afd to dtlitn 10 In)l munid~ai
<br />cn.r><...."un. ,,""I'(a' .ub.J....~n, nr fluhlic d"lrkl in Ihe SUit. rrom Ilolllt
<br />(..n'~ruafd by I~ .Un!led St,,~, on any lueh mum. ""'II rlOI br: lubjU\ \0 Illy
<br />, requIFtl'nml ~ 1II'IIllllion prntidcd by &I.... rdllin, 10 Ihe lime .ilhin _hich Ihe
<br />conmuct....n Dr worh ror the UI(' of lueh .....In ,1'1.11 be eommC'nn-d clrricoil on or
<br />com!,'rl.td. or wilhin which lueh Wilt!' IhAU be PUI 10 use. or ~Ialinl 10 'Ihe
<br />conllnu'ly of U'e' 01 lueh ..."tr; ind _lIer clOnllleled 10 be deli.ered from urch
<br />Ilr<'am, Ihall be rncr..cd 10 Ihe eOnlllelD!" Ihcrctot wilhoul dimlllulion b, relSDn or
<br />Ihe eOMflCl\)l"" hilul~ tlO apply ~uch ""rn 10 use durin, an, period, Ind sh.1I llOl
<br />be .\UbJeCllo IpprOPIl.allDll b, Iny olhcr than ,uch ronlr.at1or,
<br />19'3 Cal. Sial. eh. 1JO, 1<<. I. al 1140-41 (enacrinl CA.!.. W"TU. COOl 1 41.',.
<br />lit, 1914 Cd, Sill. ch. '19.1C'C, 2, 111806,
<br />
<br />We have earlier noted tliat Special Masler Rif1cind in Arizona v.
<br />Californ;a urged the Supreml!' Court to adopt a rule Itlat srale law
<br />governs intrastate rights and priorities (0 water diverted from the
<br />Colotado River. no The Supreme Court rejecled this 'l/iew and addi-
<br />tionally made it cryslal clear that State law hilS no place in mallers
<br />or dislribulion or Colorado River waler in the Lower Basin.U1
<br />Proressor Charles Meyers, a strong advocate of the application of
<br />Slate law to lhe distribution and use of Colorado River water,
<br />recognized the Court's pronouncements were the law,lZ2 Indeed, the
<br />Supreme COUt( dealt with the additional question or salvaged or
<br />conserved water in Arizona v. California. The coun denied a claim
<br />by the United Slales 10 Ihe USe of any waters lhat would have been
<br />wasted ir not ror the salvage without charge against its consump-
<br />tion.12J The Coun simply noted that under the Boulder Canyon
<br />Project Act consumpli'l/c use is lo be measured by diversions les'S
<br />returns to Ihe river. It also perhaps bears reminding that so-called
<br />conserved waler in Imperial in ract means water nol diverted and
<br />thus con~tilutes mainslr..eam Colorado River waler in storage behind
<br />HoO'Ver Dam, !oubjecl to the slrictures or the Law or lhe River.
<br />Arizona v. Cali/ornia is (he basis or the regulation or intrastate
<br />transfers. Therdore, we must now determint ir Congress or the
<br />Supreme Court has altered the law as enunciated in 1963 in Arizona
<br />v. California. Professor Meyers and olhers assert the Supreme Court
<br />in its. decision in Cali/ornia Y. Unilrd Slato,tat made State law
<br />applicable to the di!'lribution and use or Colorado River water within
<br />Calirornia. The aUlhor conlends that a careful reading or that case
<br />and Bryant v. Yell(!n1U will show that the law has not changed as to
<br />Lower Basin Colorado River water.
<br />Cali/ornia v. United Slales, more popularly known as the N~w
<br />MelollD cas~, lnvolved the de.ire or the United States Bureau or
<br />
<br />120. Sn"'~ nOle 59 Illd Iccomplnyinl Tnl.
<br />111. SN SlIprG nOle ~ In~ atl:Omp.;rn).mllnl.
<br />112. MC')'C'II, T7rr Color"do Riwr, 19 STAt<. L, R.EV. I," (1966).
<br />113. Arizona v. Callfo.nia,)7] U5. '46, 601 (196)).
<br />124, 4JB U.S. 64' (1971),
<br />12'. U7 U.S. HI (I9BO).
<br />
<br />1420
<br />
<br />1421
<br />
|