Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0022JO <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />appropriation,82 made clear what would follow from the <br />Government's impounding of the Colorado River waters <br />when he said, "I always understood that the interest that <br />stores the water has a right superior to prior appropria'- <br />tions that do not store." He sought Senator Johnson's <br />views on what rights the City of Los Angeles, which had <br />filed claims to large quantities of Colorado River water, <br />would have after the Government had built the dam and <br />impounded the waters. In reply to Senator Walsh's spe- <br />cific question whether the Government might "dispose of <br />the stored waters as it sees fit," Senator Johnson said, <br />"Yes, under the terms of this bil!." Senator Johnson <br />added that "everything in this scheme, plan, or design" <br />was "dependent upon the Secretary of the Interior con- <br />tracting with those who desire to obtain the benefit of <br />the construction . . .." He admitted that it was pos- <br />sible that the Secretary could "utterly ignore" Los <br />Angeles' appropriations." <br />In this same discussion, Senator Hayden emphasized <br />the Secretary's power to allocate the water by making <br />contracts with users. After Senator Walsh said that he <br />understood Senator Johnson to be arguing that the Secre- <br />tary must satisfy Los Angeles' appropriations, Senator <br /> <br />82Bean v, Morris, 221 U. S. 485 (1911). This case was relied <br />on by Mr, Justice Van Devanter in Wyoming v, Colorado, 259 U. S. <br />419, 466 (1922), <br />.. 70 Cong, Rec. 168 (1928), Other statements by Senator John- <br />son are less damaging to California's claims. For example, the Sen- <br />ator at another point in the colloquy with Senator Walsh said that <br />he doubted if the Secretary either wolll.,d or could disregard Los <br />Angeles and contract with someone having no appropriation. Ibid. <br />It is likely, however, that Senator Johnson was talking about present <br />perfected rights, as a few minutes before he had argued that' Los <br />Angeles had taken sufficient 'steps in perfecting'its chiil11s to make <br />'them protected, See id., at 167. Present perfected rights, as we <br />have obserVed in the'text, are recognized by th~' Act. S 6. <br />