WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002190 16 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. the Court has used the doctrine of equitable apportion- ment to decide river controversies between States." But in those cases Congress had not made any statutory ap- portionment. In this case, we have decided that Congress has provided its own method for allocating among the Lower Basin States the mainstream water to which they are entitled under the Compact. Where Congress has so exercised its constitutional power over waters, courts have no power to substitute their own notions of an "equitable apportionment" for the apportionment chosen by Con- gress. Nor does the Colorado River Compact control this case. Nothing in that Compact purports to divide water among the Lower Basin States nor in any way to affect or control any future apportionment among those States or any distribution of water within a State. That the Commissioners were able to accomplish even a division of water between the basins is due to what is generally known as the "Hoover Compromise." "Participants [in the Compact negotiations] have stated that the negotiations would have broken up but for Mr. Hoover's proposal: that the Commission limit its efforts to a division of water between the upper basin and the lower basin, leaving to each basin the future internal allocation of its share." 35 And in fact this is all the Compact did. However, the Project Act, by referring to the Compact in several places, does make the Compact relevant to a limited extent. To begin with, the Act explicitly approves the Compact and thereby fixes a division of the waters between the basins which must be respected. Further, in several places the Act refers to terms contained in the Compact. For ex- ample, ~ 12 of the Act adopts the Compact definition of "E, g., Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419 (1922); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S, 589 (1945), as H. R. Doc. No, 717, BOth Cong., 2d Sess. 22 (1948),