WSP12582 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i~J HOOVER DAM ENERGY 937 i': I, I: ~ l". i,;' i> this contention in the Senate Committee report of the final bill. This re- ~rt states that the portion of section 617d(c) relating to preference "gives ~ch of the adjacent states exclusive right to contract for. . . up to one- third of the total power output. . " ."78 Thus, the meaning given by Ari- tOOa and Nevada to the "except that" clause of section 617d(c),79 is not Oat it simply gives the states priority over other preference customers, but that it instead gives each state an absolute right, above all others, to take one-third of the Hoover power.80 " Nevada and Arizona find further support for this contention in the Jpparent purpose for which Congress adopted section 617d(c). In the 1927 Pittman Resolution,81 based upon the well-established principle that the slateS hold title to the bed beneath navigable waters,82 the United States Senate and the Colorado Basin states recognized that states would receive a preferred right to purchase hydroelectric energy in partial compensation for the use of their land as the Hoover Dam site.83 Consequently, the pref- erence clause was adopted to compensate the states and to recognize the equities created in the states by this use of their lands.84 Arizona and Ne-, vada argue that section ~17d(c), as adopted, accordingly was intended to grant each state a right to one-third of the Hoover power output, since their lands were used for Hoover Dam.8s Not only do Nevada and Arizona contend that the "super-preference" right to one-third of the Hoover power is supported by the legislative his- lOry with respect to the Pittman Resolution,86 but they also contend that Secretary Wilbur recognized each state's right to one-third of the Hoover power in the original allocation. In a 1930 letter to Nevada Senator Oddie, Secretary Wilbur offered Nevada the chance to take one-third of the Hoo- , , '0/. " L" \.. I t- h, I r t,'li l" h:; Kt': 1-' r Ii,' F' I;.' I: \:. ' r,; , I.,! i' \., \( t, .. [" r: t,.,.:' t!:! i V: 1'1 I'; ~\ t .f 78. S. REP. No. 592, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1928). 79, 43 U.S.C. ~ 617d(c) (1976); see supra notes 52-69 and accompanying text. 80. See Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 69-70. 81. The Pittman Resolution, October 4, 1927, introduced in the Senate, 69 CONGo REc. 9886- 89 (1927), was adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states in a unanimous vote with only California abstaining. See Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 58 n.80. The resolution provided, in ~levant part, that ''the state or states upon whose land a dam or reservoir is built by the U.S. Government. . .to generate hydroelectric energy are entitled to the preferred right to acquire the hydroelectric energy so generated." 69 CONGo REc. 9886-89. ' 82. See Bonelli Cattle CO. V. Arizona, 414 U.S. 313, 318-23 (1973) (title to beds beneath navigable waters vests in the sovereign and is held in public trust for the protection of navigation). The Colorado River is a navigable stream, Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 427 (1931), and the BCPA was enacted, at least in part. to improve navigation on the Colorado. 43 U.S.C. fi 617 (I976}. Therefore, Arizona and Nevada hold title to the beds upon which Hoover Dam was built. 83. See Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 56-58. California was apparently placed on an equal fOOling with Arizona and Nevada with respect to the distribution of power under the Pittman Resolution because California's irrigation and flood control needs prompted the project. Jd at 67. . 84. See, e.g., Hearings on H.R. 5773 Before Ihe House Comm. on J"igation and Reclamation, 10th Cong., 1st Sess. 28 (1928); Hearings on S. 728 Before the SellfJle Comm. on J"igation and Reclamation, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 184-87 (1928); Senate Debate on S. 728, 69 CONGo REc. 9886- 89 (1928) (remarks of Arizona Senator Hayden). The amendment to fi 617d(c) containing the language that became law was introduced for- mally in the House as being in recognition of the rights of the states as delineated in the Pittman Resolution. See 69 CONGo REc. 9652-54 (1928); Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 62-65. 85. See Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 67. The contention that the ~ 617d(c) preference for stales resulted from recognition of this right of the states and the Pittman Resolution rationale has SOme support in the legislative history. See supra notes 81-84 and 'accompanying text. 86. See Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 56-67; see supra n?tes 81-85 and accompanying text. l,j r',' I' ' [: I - r, \, t 1',,1 \,:';, . L I': ~ '~ !' i I \ \ 1 .