Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"

Home Browse Search

14 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Basin. The Court's holding was later modified by Section 30 1 ( b) of fo r h Colorado l River B P Act roject Project which also p rovided California with a 4.4 maf priority be The Court upheld the Master's finding that the Arizona -New Mexico dispute regarding Gila Rive waters water decided by equitable apportionment (since the Congressional statutory apportionment was not applicable thereto) and that the States compromise settlement be included in the Decree. The Court followed the "Winters Right Doctrine" o end d torese reserve for w hem the waters without created which their R lands vations along the Lower Colorado River, in the quantity would have been useless. It upheld the United States claims for the Lower Colorado River. This wasabout the practicably irrigable acreage on the five Reservations along 905,496 acre -feet for 136,636 irrigable acres. The Court disagreed with the Special Masteohavei determine Indian Reser ation and delayed boundaries delayed a rung until t a dispute rado River Indian Reservation and the Fort M develops over title because of some future refusal by the Secretary to deliver water. ights for The Court agreed with the Special Master that the princiiplestabls hments such as the L ke Mead onal e reservation of water Indian Reservations was equally applicable to 0 ther Recreation Area, the Lake Havasu and Imperial National Wildlife R a nd w create tonal Forest, an that sufficient. water was reserved for the purposes The United States cannot claim the entir salvate b the use without the Governmenthongts wildlife lrefuges,ubecause of the waters that would have been wasted but for sa g Y sumptive use from the mainstream be measured by diversions less returns to Project Act's command that con the river. Finally, the Court agreed with the Special Master that all uses of mainstream e he United States. a State are to charged against that State's apportionment and that included uses by The Special Master's Report is elaborated on in Chapter VIII and the Supreme Court Opinion in Chapter IX. J. The Supreme Court Decree in Arizona u California An "analysis of the Report of the Special Master in Arizona v. California, dated. Ch peers VIII andlXf ears the Supreme Court's Opinion dated June 3, 1963, 373 U.S. 546, app respectively. The Supreme Court Decree dated March 9, ail ble for6 confirms Arizona's elease, ass determined by the Secretary of he In- when there was sufficient mainstream water. av ortioned terior, to satisfy 7.5 maf /yr of consumptive use in the three Lower Basin State tt'on d for use in Nevada 4.4 maf /yr thereof for use in C alifornia and 300,000 acre -feet annually was apportioned (Article 11 (B) (1)). " ,..diversions from the stream less such return flow thereto as is c e j The Decree defines "consumptive use" as available for consumptive use in the United States o Arttcle I( ( `Present perfeced nnghts I(H)) I(A)). The Decree also defined a Perfected right ti as a water right acquired in accordance with State law an existing actual diversion l e sionof2water tha has ve been apf the Boulder Canyon Project Act), which has been exercised y plied to a defined area of land or to defined municipal or industrial works and including rights reserved for Federal establishments. Article II(A) enjoins the United States and its officers from releasing water other than in accordance with e following order of priority: (1) For river regulation, improvement g s flood tion of present perfected rights; and (2) For irrigation and domestic uses, including the satisfaction (3) For power. release water for Mexico without regard to the aforesaid Provided, however, that the United States may rities follows the provisions of Section 6 of the Boulder Canyon priorities. Note that the above order of prio Project Act.