Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002199 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />being allocated from "the main Colorado River.".' And <br />other interested Senators similarly distinguished between <br />the mainstream and the tributaries..2 While the debates, <br />extending over a long period of years, undoubtedly con- <br />tain statements which support inferences in conflict with <br />those we have drawn, we are persuaded by the legislative <br />history as a whole that the Act was not intended to give <br />California any claim to share in the tributary waters of <br />the other Lower Basin States. <br />C. The Project Act's Apportionment and Distribution <br />Scheme.-The legislative history, the language of the Act, <br />and the scheme established by the Act for the storage and <br />delivery of water convince us also that Congress intended <br />to provide its own method for a complete apportionment <br />of the mainstream water among Arizona, California, and <br />Nevada. <br />First, the legislative history. In hearings on the House <br />bill that became the Project Act, Congressman Arentz of <br />Nevada, apparently impatient with the delay to this <br />much needed project, told the committee on January 6, <br />1928, that if the States could not themselves allocate the <br />water, "there must be some power which will say to Cali- <br />fornia 'You can not take any more than this amount and <br />the balance is allocated to the other States.' " .3 Later, <br />May 25, 1928, the House passed the bill,.4 but it did not <br />contain any allocation scheme. When the Senate took <br />up that bill in December, pressure mounted swiftly for <br />amendments that would provide a workable method for <br />apportioning the waters among the Lower, Basin States <br /> <br />., I d., at 469. See also id., at 232. <br />.2 See id., at 463 (Shortridge); id., at 465 (King). <br />.a Hearings on H. R. 5773, supra note 25, at 50. <br />.469 Cong. Rec. 9990 (1928). <br />