|
<br />THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT 3
<br />
<br />
<br />001781
<br />
<br />The Oourt held and decreed that, if sufficient water is available to
<br />satisfy 7,500,000 acre-feet of annual consumptive use from waters of
<br />the main stream of the Colorado River without regard to the lower
<br />basin tributaries, then of such 7,500,000 acre-feet of consumptive nse,
<br />there are apportioned to Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet, to California
<br />4,400,000 acre-feet, and to Nevada 300,000 acre-feet.
<br />The Court held and decreed that if there is insufficient main-stream
<br />water available to satisfy the annual consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-
<br />feet in Arizona, California, and Nevada: (1) the Secretary of the In-
<br />terior must satisfy present perfected rights, i.e., those existing as of
<br />June25, 1929, in order of priority and without regard to State lilles;
<br />and (2) that if there were an amount remaining for consumptive
<br />use, it should be apportioned by the Secretary "* * * in such manner
<br />as is consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act as interpreted by
<br />the opinion of this Court herein, and with other applicable Federal
<br />statutes." As interpreted by the Court, the Boulder Canyon Project
<br />Act does not provide a priority to existing uses except "present per-
<br />fected rights," existing as of June 25, 1929. The Court specifically
<br />rejected California's contrary contentions, saying:
<br />
<br />* * * we cannot accept California's contention that in
<br />case of shortage each State's share of water should be de-
<br />termined by the judicial doctrine of equitable apportionment
<br />or by the law of prior appropriation (373 U.S. at 593-594).
<br />
<br />Counsel for the California agencies testified at the hearings on S.
<br />1658 that California's entitlement to 4.4 million acre-feet is not
<br />superior to Arizona's entitlement to 2.8 million acre-feet. In response
<br />to Senator Anderson's question: "Does the Supreme Court IP:ve you
<br />4.4 superior to Arizona's 2.8?" he answered: "No, sir; it dId not."
<br />The committee agrees California's entitlement to 4,400,000 acre-feet
<br />is not superior to Arizona's entitlement to 2,800,000 acre-feet.
<br />By the opinion and decree, Arizona is placed in the position of hav-
<br />ing met the requirement of the Committee on Interior and Insular
<br />Affairs of the House of Representatives as set forth in its resolution
<br />of April 18, 1951, and is in a position to renew its request for authori-
<br />zation of the Central Arizona pr()ject. The request is now supported
<br />by the authority of the highest Court.
<br />The legal support for Arizona's request has been recognized by
<br />responsible authorities in California. Shortly after the Supreme
<br />Court decision, the Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor of the
<br />State of California, announced that California having lost the Su-
<br />preme Court case--
<br />
<br />would not try to accomplish by obstruction what she had
<br />failed to accomplish by litigation.
<br />
<br />HISTORY OF THE COLORADO RIVER
<br />
<br />The Colorado River has its origin in the mountains of Colorado and
<br />flows in a southwesterly direction for about 1,300 miles through Colo-
<br />rado, Utah, and Arizona and along the Arizona-Nevada and Arizona-
<br />California boundaries, after which it empties into the Gulf of Cali-
<br />fornia. Its tributary waters are received from Wyoming, Colorado,
<br />Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. The river drains an area
<br />
|