Compacts, Decrees, and Treaties Affecting CO's Water

Home Browse Search

Stated in its simplest terms, therefore,. the Supreme Court in arriving at its decision applied the terms of the Boulder Canyon Project Act above referred to, as did the Special Master. There was one significant departure, however, from the Master's decision. The rlaster held that in times of shortage that the shortage should be ap?ortioned, using a mathematical formula in proportion to each state s share of the allocated waters. The Supreme Court disagreed with thfs method of apportioning ahortages on the basis that neither the project act nor the water contracts require the use of any par- Cicular formula for apportioning such shortages. The Court reasoned that since the Boulder Canyon Project was constructed for other purposes in addition to irrigation, such as flood control, naviga- tion, regulation of flow, and generation of electrical energy, that the Secretary should not be tied to a rigid foranula which would force hi.m to distribute water for irrigaCion purposes only. Fol- lowing Chis line of reasoning the Court held that the Secretary of the Interior "is free to choose among the recognized methods of apportioriment or to devise reasonable methods of his own". The entire essence of the Supreme Court's decision was to the effect thaC since the lower basin states had failed to agree among themselves as to a division of the Colorado River waters, then Congress, by the Boulder Canyon Act, ha.d done this for them. Of particular interest to Che upper basin states is the fact that Arizona contended that the Colorado River Compact apportioned onZy the waters of the main stream, not the main atream and the tributaries. In view of the express wording of the Colorado River Compact, this appears to be a ridiculous contention. The Supreme Court, however, contented itself on this point by stating: "We need not reach that question, however, for we have concluded that whatever waters the Compact apportioned the Project Act itself dealt only with water of the main stream." There is nothin in the ro'ect act which states that Co ress was s ea in on o t e waters o t e ma n srream. T e pro ect act, as a rea y quote , spea s o t e , , acre-feet annually apportioned to the lower basin b ara ra h a of Article III of the Colorado River Com act." Emp as s supp ie . rtic e a) o tICe o ora o River Compact, above referred to in the pro3ect act, reads as follows: "There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River _Sy _st_e_m in perpetuity to the Upper Basin an to t e ower lasTn-respectively the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include all water necessary for the suppl of anp rights which may now exist." (r?nphasis supplied?. Article II(a) of the Compact defines the Colorado River System as follows: -15-