WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002189 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 15 here are adjudicated, the conflicting claims of the parties will continue, as they do now, to raise serious doubts as to the extent of each State's right to appropriate water from the Colorado River System for existing or new uses. In this situation we should and ,do exercise our jurisdiction. I. ALLOCATION OF WATER AMONG THE STATES AND DISTRIBUTION TO USERS. We have concluded, for reasons to be stated, that Con- gress in passing the Project Act intended to and did create its own comprehensive scheme for the apportion- ment among California, Arizona, and Nevada of the main- stream waters of the Colorado River, leaving each State its tributaries. Congress decided that a fair division of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water would give 4,400,000 acre-feet to California, 2,800,000 to Arizona, and 300,000 to Nevada; Arizona and California would each get one-half of any surplus. Prior approval was therefore given in the Act for a tri-state compact to incor- porate these terms. The States, subject to subsequent congressional approval, were also permitted to agree on a compact with different terms. Division of the water did not, however, depend on the States' agreeing to a compact, for Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior adequate authority to accomplish the division. Congress did this by giving the Secretary power to make contracts for the delivery of water and by providing that no person could have water without a contract. A. Relevancy of Judicial Apportionrnent and Colorado River Compact.-We agree with the Master that appor- tionment of the Lower Basin waters of the Colorado River is not controlled by the doctrine of equitable apportion- ment or by the Colorado River Compact. It is true that 99500 0-63-2