|
<br />
<br />. .
<br />
<br />P<</jIc lAw Joumal / Yol. 19
<br />
<br />1988 / California Colorado Rill6' lUlln
<br />
<br />low~r Basin states, and the California users of Colorado River
<br />waler, also in\'olved the United Stales on behalf of five Indian
<br />Reservations and awarded the Indian Reservations nearly 1,000,000
<br />acre.feet of the Lower Basin's annual apportionment of 7.S00,OOO
<br />acre.(cc1.'. DClwcen 19S2 and 1963. Cwo special masters held several
<br />yun a( nearings whicb kd to a massi.ve l'Cporl 1n 1961.
<br />The heart of the Supreme Court's opinion is contained in this
<br />
<br />passage:
<br />We have concluded. fOt reasons 10 be slaled, Ihat Congress in
<br />passing The IBoulder Canyon) Project Act inlcndrd to and did create
<br />ils own comprehensive scheme fot the apporlionment amona Cali.
<br />fornia. Arizon:!, ud Ne"\'ada of the Lower B,uin', share of the
<br />mainstream walen or Ihe Colorado River, le.vine: each Slate ilS
<br />Iribut4rin. Congreu decided that a rair diwtsion or the first 7,500,(0)
<br />acre-feet or such mainslream walen would hawe ".400.000 acre.reet
<br />to Calirornia, 2,800,000 10 Arizona, and 300,000 to Nnada; Arizona
<br />and Calirornia would each let one-hatr oC any surplus. Prior
<br />approval was Ibererore liven in the Act ror a tri-slate compacl to
<br />incorporale Ihese tenns. The Slatcs. subject 10 sub5equenl conSres.
<br />sional approw.l. were al50 pcrmilled 10 a8r<< on a compact with
<br />diHerent terms. Division or Ihe w,ter did not, howner. depend on
<br />the Slates' asreeing to a compact. Cor Conlress lave the Secretary
<br />of the Inferior adeQuate aUlhority 10 accomplish Ihe division. Con.
<br />Iress did this by aiwing .he Sccrclary power to make contracts ror
<br />lhe dclivery oC waler and by providinl that no person could have
<br />wafer withoul a conlract."
<br />
<br />The Ari:zonQ Court thus disposed of argumenls claiming Ihat (he
<br />doctrine of equitable apportionment applied and that the Colorado
<br />River Compact itself had caused an apportionmenl in Ihe lower
<br />Basin.
<br />The Courl also addressed the problem or whether slate or federal
<br />".aler law applies in questions or apportionment and delivery of
<br />lower Has1n Colorado River water. Traditional redamation law
<br />required the Bureau of Reclamation to comply with state law in .he
<br />Ipproprialion of water for Ihese federal projects. pursuant 10 Section
<br />8 of .he Reclamation Acl of 1902.... Seelion 14 of Ihe Boulder
<br />Canyon Project Act staled (hat the A(I is I supplcmenl Co reclamation
<br />
<br />law and that reclamation law loverns the construction, operation,
<br />and management or Ihe work! authorized by the Act with certain
<br />exceptions." In addition, Seclion 18 provided:
<br />NOlhinl herein shall be conslrued as inlerCerinl1rith luch n,htl as
<br />the SIBles now have either to the ,..alen within lheir borden or 10
<br />edoPl s.uch poli<:.ies and such laws as (hey nuy deem nc<:essary wilh
<br />respect to Ihe approprialion, control, and use of walen within their
<br />borders, e:lcept as modilied by the Colorado River Compact or
<br />other inlenlale agreement.-
<br />The Special Master relied on the languase of those sections to
<br />recommend and urge that the Secretary's water delivery contracts
<br />must comply with slate law." but the Supreme Court disposed of
<br />these arguments:
<br />In our view, nothing in any of these provisions (sections 14 Bnd
<br />IS) .Hects our decision, stated urlier,'lhat It is the Act and Ihe
<br />Secretary's contracls, not the law of prior appropriation, that
<br />control the apportionment of water amonl the Stales. Moreover,
<br />conlrary to Ihe Muter's conclusion, we hold that the Secrelary in
<br />choosing between u~rs wilhin each State and in se"lina the terms
<br />or his contracts is nOI bound by these sections to follow stale
<br />law... .
<br />Section 18 merely preserves such righls as lhe States 'now' hawe,
<br />Ihat is. 'Stich rilht!: as they had at the time the Act was passed.
<br />While the States were lencraJly Cree to "erc:ise some jurisdiction
<br />over these walers before the Act was passed, this rilht was subject
<br />to Ihe Federal Government's righl to regulate and dnelop the river.
<br />Where the GovCTnrnent, as here. has uercised this power and
<br />underta'lten a comprehensive project for the improvement of a ITut
<br />river and for the orderly and benencial distribution of waler, there
<br />is no room for inconsistent Slate laws. . . . Section 18 plainly allow.
<br />Iht SlalCS to do thing, not incoR!listent with (he Project Act or with
<br />federal conlrol of the river. for example, resulalion of the use of
<br />tribulary water and protection or prescnt perrected rilhls. Whal
<br />other Ihings Ihe State! are free to do can be decided when tht
<br />occasion arises. But where the Secretary', contracts,. as here. carry
<br />out a congressional plan for the complete distribution of waten 10
<br />users, Slate law has no place..
<br />
<br />,.. 04".0.....)7) U.S. 5A6. '96 '1M]). .~ 1-"1'" It_I II hOle 1.1.... (dilCUulon or lhe
<br />IIIOUlion of W"ltT 10 lhc hld;"n nibn Incllhc I"end'nl probJC'lIIII.
<br />". Am"'N1.}7J U.S. II 'M.to,.
<br />'6. Red.malion ACI of 1901. J1 Sill. )II. )90 (1901) (<<OdlrlCd Ill:Inmdrd aI .) V.S.C.
<br />')1) (1911& SU'PP 111191S)).
<br />
<br />H. ., 5111. 1057. 106' "'211 (codified II 4) U.5.C. 1611(11 (ln2ll.
<br />S!. 'd. at 10M (codified 114) U.5.C. 1611(1)11982)1.
<br />'9 ~ Arizona v. Californil. Repon of Ihe Spec...1 JotI.$lCl'. II 114-11 (J64 U.S. 940
<br />(19611I (on rilt' II Ih, Mnropol;1I11 Wiler DiIIJ"ic1 of SovIhC'l'll Callrornia) Ihtreinarler Ilcport
<br />:If IheSrrci,,1 Mlllerl.
<br />60. ArilOll..)7) U.S..I ,M.I7.
<br />
<br />1404
<br />
<br />1405
<br />
|