Compacts, Decrees, and Treaties Affecting CO's Water

Home Browse Search

rights of the Lower Basin states to the waters of the Colorado River had been determined either by litigation or by voluntary agreement. Faced with this political reality, the state of Arizona in 1952 again invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States by filing a complaint against the state of California, lhis time the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction. The suit requested an ad,judica*_ion between the states of Arizona and California as to the division of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries between those two states. After the filing of the complaint, the United States and the states of Nevada, New ri,exico and Utah were joined as parties. The Supreme Court referred the case to Mr. George I. Haight as Special Master. Mr. HaighC died in 1955 and the case was then referred to Mr. Simon H. Ri£kind as successor to rZr. Haight, , In January, 1961, the Special Master reported his findings, conclusions and recoamnended decrees to the Supreme Court. Subse- quent oral arguments and briefs were presented to the Court attacking, or in same cases supporting, the Na:-'1--='s :findings.arid decree. On June 3, 1963, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case. In its decision the Supreme Court stated: "As we see this case, the question of each State's share of the waters of the Colorado and its tributaries turns on the meaning and the scope of the Boulder Canyon Project Acti passed by Congress in 1928." In support of thi:; line of reasoning the Court held that there was nothing in the Colorado River Compact which purported to divide - - water among the Lower Basin states, and that therefore the Colo- rado River Compact did not control. This conclusion is somewhat baffling since the projecC act makes repeated reference to the Colorado River Compact. To put it another way, the pro,ject act cannot be interpreted without first interpreting the Compact. That portion of the Boulder Canyvn Project Act which apparently controlled and derermined the Court's decision reads as follows: "The States of Arizona, California, and Nevada are authorized to enter into an agreement which sha11 provide (1) that of the 7,500,000 acre-feet annually apportfoned to the lower basin by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado Riv.ar compact, there shall be apportioned to the State of Nevada 300,000 acre-feet and to the State of Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet tor exclusive beneficial con- sumpCive use in perpetuity, and (2) that the State of Ari2ona ma.y annually use one-half of the excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River compact, and (3) that the State of Arizona shall have the exclusive -13-