WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002196 22 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. floor so that the limitation referred to waters apportioned to the Lower Basin "by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact," instead of waters appor- tioned "by the Colorado River compact." .. Statements made throughout the debates make it quite clear that Congress intended the 7,500,000 acre-feet it was allocating, and out of which California was limited to 4,400,000, to be mainstream water only. In the first place, the basin Senators expressly acknowledged as the starting point for their debate the Denver Governors' pro- posal that specific allocations be made to Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Nevada from the mainstream, leaving the tributaries to the States. For example, Senator Johnson, leading spokesman for California, and Senator Hayden, leading spokesman for Arizona, agreed that the Gover- nors' recommendations could be used as "a basis for dis- cussion.".3 Hayden went on to observe that the Com- mittee amendment would give California the same 4,600,000 acre-feet she had sought at Denver," Later, Nevada's Senator Pittman stated that the committee "put the amount in there that California demanded before the four governors at Denver," and said that the Bratton amendment would split the 400,000 acre-feet separating the Governors' figure and the Committee's figure.55 All the leaders in the debate-Johnson, Bratton, King, Hay- den, Phipps, and Pittman---expressed a common under- standing that the key issue separating Arizona and 52 70 Congo Rec. 459 (1928). That this change was not intended to cause the States to give up their tributaries may reasonably be inferred from the fact that the amendment was agreed to by Senator Hayden, who was a constant opponent of including the tributaries. s3Id., at 77. "Ibid, Later, Senator Hayden said that his amendment incor- porated the Governors' proposal. ld" at 172-173. 55 Id., at 386.