WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O()2215 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 41 conclusion was based on the Master's reasoning that the Secretary was given physical control over the waters stored in Lake Mead and not over waters before they reached the lake. We hold that the Master was correct in deciding that the Secretary cannot reduce water deliveries to Arizona and Nevada by the amount of their uses from tributaries above Lake Mead, for, as we have held, Congress in the Project Act intended to apportion only the mainstream, leaving tO'each State its own tributaries. We disagree, however, with the Master's holding that the Secretary is powerless to charge States for diversions from the main- stream above Lake Mead. What Congress was doing in the Project Act was providing for an apportionment among the Lower Basin States of the water allocated to that basin by the Colorado River Compact. The Lower Basin, with which Congress, was dealing, begins at Lee Ferry, and it was all the water in the mainstream below Lee Ferry that Congress intended to divide among the States. Were we to refuse the Secretary the power to charge States for diversions from the mainstream between Lee Ferry and the dam site, we would allow individual States, by making diversions that deplete the Lower Basin's allocation, to upset the whole plan of apportion- ment arrived at by Congress to settle the long-standing dispute in the Lower Basin. That the congressional ap- portionment scheme would be upset can easily be demon- strated. California, for example, has been allotted 4,400,000 acre-feet of mainstream water. If Arizona and Nevada can, without being charged for it, divert water from the river above Lake Mead, then California could not get the share Congress intended her to have. B. Nevada Contract.-Nevada has excepted to her in- clusion in Paragraph II (B) (7) of the Master's recom- mended decree, which provides that "mainstream water shall be delivered to users in Arizona, California and Ne-