WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002217 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 43 of California to 4,400,000 acre-feet, effect a valid appor- tionment of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water in the Lower Basin. There remains the question of what shall be done in time of shortage. The Master, while declining to make any findings as to what future supply might be expected, nevertheless decided that the Project Act and the Secretary's contracts require the Secretary in case of shortage to divide the burden among the three States in this proportion: California 4.4 A' 2.8 N d .3 Wh'l h' f 7.5; rIzona 7.5; I eva a 7.5' 1 e pro rata s armg 0 water shortages seems equitable on its face,96 more con- sidered judgment may demonstrate quite the contrary. Certainly we should not bind the Secretary to this formula. We have held that the Secretary is vested with consider- able control over the apportionment of Colorado River waters. And neither the Project Act nor the water con- tracts require the use of any particular formula for appor- tioning shortages. While the Secretary must follow the standards set out in the Act, he nevertheless is free to choose among the recognized methods of apportionment or to devise reasonable methods of his own. This choice, as we see it, is primarily his, not the Master's or even ours. And the Secretary mayor may not conclude that a pro rata division is the best solution. It must be remembered that the Secretary's decision may have an effect not only on irrigation uses but also on other important functions for which Congress brought this great project into being-flood control, improvement of navigation, regulation of flow, and generation and dis- tribution of electric power. Requiring the Secretary to prorate shortages would strip him of the very power of 96 Proration of shortage is the method agreed upon by the United States and Mexico to adjust Mexico's share of Colorado River water should there be insufficient water to supply each country's apportionment.