WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002"2tJ3 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 29 The Senator went on to explain why the Senate had found it necessary to set up its own plan for allocating the water: "Why do we not leave it to California to say how much water she shall take out of the river or leave it to Arizona to say how much water she shall take out of the river? It is because it happens to become a duty of the United States Senate to settle this matter, and that is the reason." 78 Not only do the closing days of the debate show that Congress intended an apportionment among the States but also provisions of the Act create machinery plainly adequate to accomplish this purpose, whatever contingen- cies might occur. As one alternative of the congressional scheme, S 4 (a) of the Act invited Arizona, California, and Nevada to adopt a compact dividing the waters along the identical lines that had formed the basis for the con- gressional discussions of the Act: 4,400,000 acre-feet to California, 300,000 to Nevada, and 2,800.000 to Arizona. Section 8 (b) gave the States power to agree upon some other division, which would have to be approved by Con- gress. Congress made sure, however, that if the States did not agree on any compact the objects of the Act would be carried out, for the Secretary would then proceed, by making contracts, to apportion water among the States and to allocate the water among users within each State. In the first section of the Act, the Secretary was au- thorized to "construct, operate, and maintain a dam and incidental works . . . adequate to create a storage reser- voir of a capacity of not less than twenty million acre- feet of water . . ." for the stated purpose of "controlling the floods, improving navigation and regulating the flow . 7S Id., at 471. The Senator added, "We have already decided as to the division of the water, and we say that if the States wish they can enter into a subsidiary agreement confirming that," Ibid.