Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0022J7 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br />Hayden corrected him, pointing out that Senator Johnson <br />had qualified his statement by saying that "after all, the <br />Secretary of the Interior could allow the city of Los <br />Angeles to have such quantity of water as might be deter- <br />mined by contract." Senator Hayden went on to say <br />that, where domestic and irrigation needs conflicted, "the <br />Secretary of the Interior will naturally decide as between <br />applicants, one who desires to use the water for potable <br />purposes in the city and another who desires to use it for <br />irrigation, if there is not enough water to go around, that <br />the city shall have the preference."" It is also signifi- <br />cant that two vigorous opponents of the bill, Arizona's <br />Representative Douglas and Utah's Representative Col- <br />ton, criticized the bill because it gave the Secretary of <br />the Interior "absolute control" over the disposition of the <br />stored waters.'5 <br />The argument that Congress would not have delegated <br />to the Secretary so much power to apportion and distribute <br />the water overlooks the ways in which his power is limited <br />and channeled by standards in the Project Act. In par- <br /> <br />.. 70 Congo Rec, 169 (1928). At one point Senator Hayden seems <br />to say that the Secretary's contracts are to be governed by state law: <br />"The only thing required in this bill is contained in the amendment <br />that I have offered, that there shall be apportioned to each State its <br />share of the water. Then, who shall obtain that water in relative <br />order of priority may be determined by the State courts," Ibid, <br />But, in view of the Senator's other statements in the same debate, <br />this remark of a man so knowledgeable in western water law makes <br />sense only if one understands that the "order of priority" being talked <br />about wa~ the order of present perfected rights-rights which Senator <br />Hayden recognized, see id" at 167, and which the Act preserves in ~ 6. <br />85 69 Congo Rec, 9623, 9648, 9649 (1928). We recognize, of course, <br />that statements of opponents of a bill may not be authoritative, see <br />Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp" 341 U. S. 384, 394- <br />395 (1951), but they are nevertheless relevant and useful, especially <br />where, as here, the proponents of the bill made no response to the <br />opponents' criticisms. <br />