WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002197 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 23 California was the difference of 400,000 acre-feet,.6 pre- cisely the same 400,000 acre-feet of mainstream water that had separated the States at Denver. Were we to sustain California's argument here that tributaries must be included, California would actually get more than she was willing to settle for at Denver. That the apportionment was from the mainstream only is also strongly indicated by an analysis of the second paragraph of ~ 4 (a) of the Act. There Congress author- ized Arizona, Nevada, and California to make a compact allocating to Nevada 300,000 acre-feet and to Arizona 2,800,000 plus one-half of surplus, which, with California's 4,400,000 and half of the surplus, would under Cali- fornia's interpretation of the Act exhaust the Lower Basin waters, both mainstream and tributaries. But Utah and New Mexico, as Congress knew, had interests in Lower Basin tributaries which Congress surely would have protected in some way had it meant for the tribu- taries of those two States to be included in the water to be divided among Arizona, Nevada, and California. We cannot believe that Congress would have permitted three States to divide among themselves water belonging to five States. Nor can we believe that the representatives of Utah and New Mexico would have sat quietly by and acquiesced in a congressional attempt to include their tributaries in waters given the other three States. Finally, in considering California's claim to share in the tributaries of other States, it is important that from the .6Id" at 164 (King), 165 (Johnson, Bratton), 382 (Hayden, Phipps), 385 (Bratton), 386 (Pittman), Senator Hayden's state- ment is representative: "I want to state to the Senate that what I am trying to accomplish is to get a vote on the one particular ques- tion of whether the quantity of water which the State of California may divert from the Colorado River should be 4,200,000 acre-feet or 4,600,000 acre-feet," ld., at 382.