WSP11373 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001852 there is a natural reludance to develop the land when there is a danger that users may be legally barred from applying water to its irrigation," said the Master. "Manifestly. then," he concluded, "the various claims to mainstream water urged by the padies to this litigation ought to be decided by the Supreme Court so as to remove this contro- versy as the m:l,ior obstacle to full developmnt of th" Lower Rasin of the Colorado River." The Master then announced his l'ondu;;ion tl1at the states' claims to mainstream water were governed by the following: The Boulder Canyon Project Act. the California Limitation Act and the several water delivery contracts made with the Secretary of the Interior. He held as "inelevant" the Colorado River Com- pact, the doctrine of equitable apportionment and the law of appropriation. On the subject of the Compact, he had this to say: "Extensive argument was had on the origin, purposes and meaning Ilf the Colorado River Compact. Some of the parties labored under the conviction that prolonged and faithful exegesis of the text of this historic in~trument would somehow yield a solution to the problems of this litigation, The sentiment which promoted this line of thinking seemed to rise from a pro- foaml faith that the Compact, venerated for its great contri. bution to the growt!] of the Southwest. would in some unexpected manner come to the aid of the disputing states, Reflection has not confirmed these hopes. The Compact does not an5wer any of the vital Questions which must be answered in the disposition of this suit, The Compact contributes some light on the supply of mainstream water, insofar as it regulates the extent to which the River may be depleted by the Uppel' Basin. Beyond that the Compact has no utility in the ad,judication of this case." The Compaet, said the Mastel', represented an accommoda- tion of the conflicting interests of Upper and Lower Basin for the mutual benefit of both, In contention between them was the division of water, "It was foreseen," explained the Master, "that, once the river was regulated, the Lower Basin would develop more rapidlY than the Upper Basin. The problem of the Compact commissioners. therefore, was to safeguard the Upper Basin against this rapid development with its threat of vesting in the Lower Basin appropriative rights enforcible against the Uppel' Basin, and at the same time to allow sufficient water to the Lower Basin to ensure development there," And so, summarized the Master, the provisions of the Com- pact were addressed solely to "the relations of basin to basin and not of state to state." "Any interpretation of the Compact must be confined uy this limiting factor," he continued. "And from this it also follows that the Compact. offers no solution to thb controversy among states with respect to their Lower BHsin interests."