Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001857 <br /> <br />The Master went 011 to point out that the topography and <br />geography of the basin make it possible to utilize the waters <br />of the river feasibly and economically only by constructing <br />"great projects," He defined this term to mean dams. pumping <br />facilities, desilting basins, canals and other works, "the cost of <br />which is enormous." <br /> <br />"Needless to say," said the Master, "such projects cannot <br />be financed unless there is assurance that water will be not only <br />physically' but legally available for their operation. No such <br />assurance of the legal availability of mainstream water for use <br />in any particular state can today be given," <br /> <br />To remove such uncertainty, the Master continued, would <br />require either an interstate compact or adjudication by the <br />Supreme Court. A compact did not seem to be in prospect. <br /> <br />"Congress, in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, encouraged <br />Arizona. California and Nevada to agree to a compact appor- <br />tioning mainstream water among them," the Master recalled, <br />"and even suggested a division which it approved in advance. <br />For over thirty years, however, these states have been unable to <br />agree. Time has not cooled the controversy among them, and <br />it seems unlikely that they will be able to agree in the fore- <br />seeable future." <br /> <br />Therefore, concluded the Master, Arizona's lawsuit had to <br />be adjudicated in order to determi1\C "the legal availability of <br />mainstream water in the Lower Basin." <br /> <br />"It is an inescapable fact," he said. "that unless this con- <br />troversy among the three states and the United States is adjudi- <br />cated, the full utilization of the Colorado River will be indefi- <br />nitely delayed. Such a result would frustrate the purposes of <br />Congress in authorizing the construction of Hoover Dam and <br />would seriously hinder development of the entire area." <br /> <br />There was still another reason, to the Master's way of <br />thinking, for the Court to exercise jurisdiction; Already de- <br />veloped in California were a number of projects calling for <br />increased IIses of mainstream water. For instance, the Imperial <br />Irrigation District proposed to irrigate a "substantial part" of <br />its unirrigated lands, and the Metropolitan Water District <br />planned "a substantial increase in its diversions of mainstream <br />water, under an existing water delivery contract." But Arizona <br />contended that California already was consuming more than <br />its apportionment of mainstream water under the Boulder Can- <br />yon Project Art and shouM be harred from increasing its Uses. <br /> <br />"Certainly." said the Master. "Arizona's claim should be <br />adjudicated so that the California agencies can make intelligent <br />plans for their future development and operation. In a juris- <br />dictional sense, the Colorado River is substantially over-appro- <br />priated as to California, if Arizona's argument is valid," <br /> <br />On the other side of the interstate houndary, Arizona, too, <br />was proposing increased uses of mainstream water, especially <br />around Yuma, But, "as in the ease of the California prDjeets, <br />