My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC00493
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSPC00493
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:50:06 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:13:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
6/3/1963
Title
AZ Vs CA - Determination of Rights of States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River - Opinion of the Supreme Court of the US - RE AZ Vs CA
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />002218 <br /> <br />44 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />choice which we think Congress, for reasons satisfactory <br />to it, vested in him and which we should not impair or <br />take away from him. For the same reasons we cannot <br />accept California's contention that in case of shortage <br />each State's share of water should be determined by the <br />judicial doctrine of equitable apportionment or by the <br />law of prior appropriation. These principles, while they <br />may provide some guidance, are not binding upon the Sec- <br />retary where, as here, Congress, with full power to do so, <br />has provided that the waters of a navigable stream shall <br />be harnessed, conserved, stored, and distributed through <br />a government agency under a statutory scheme. <br />None of this is to say that in case of shortage, the <br />Secretary cannot adopt a method of proration or that he <br />may not lay stress upon priority of use, local laws and <br />customs, or any other factors that might be helpful in <br />reaching an informed judgment in harmony with the <br />Act, the best interests of the Basin States, and the welfare <br />of the Nation. It will be time enough for the courts to <br />intervene when and if the Secretary, in making appor- <br />tionments or contracts, deviates from the standards Con- <br />gress has set for him to follow, including his obligation <br />to respect "present perfected rights" as of the'date the <br />Act was passed. At this time the Secretary has made <br />no decision at all based on an actual or anticipated short- <br />age of water, and so there is no action of his in this respect <br />for us to review. Finally, as the Master pointed out, <br />Congress still has broad powers over this navigable inter- <br />national stream. Congress can undoubtedly reduce or <br />enlarge the Secretary's power if it wishes. Unless and <br />until it does, we leave in the hands of the Secretary, <br />where Congress placed it, full power to control, manage, <br />lI:nd operate the Governmen,t'~ ColoradoRi;ver works and <br />to make. contracts for the sale and delivery of water on <br />such terms as are not prohibited by the Project Act. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.