<br />9"121
<br />
<br />(ji)l9./i
<br />
<br />j
<br />CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
<br />
<br />Jun.e 4,
<br />
<br />to submit before September 1(\, 19'63. tbe
<br />form ot decree to carr, tb.'- opinion l.Dto
<br />elleet. tailing which the Court wUl p..epu.
<br />and enter lUI. approprla\.e de<':r~ at the O"t
<br />Term of Ccnu't.
<br />It16l'Oorlkn'd.
<br />The Chief Justice took no part In the
<br />consideration or declalon of thb cue.
<br />
<br />Iln t1~ SUpreme Oourt of the United 8tAtN.
<br />No.8. Orlglnal, Octo""" term. 196:1)
<br />STAno," .....rzo....... PLAINTlrP. v. SrAn: 0,.
<br />CAUft'JllNUl n AL.-COMl'1..lOIl'lT
<br />(June 3. 19631
<br />(!.tr. JI15t1ce Douglall,dl.lll;enttng.)
<br />,
<br />This cue, I think. hIlS ~n haunted by
<br />HI"erallrreluanclt'a. Pint. b the fa<:t U.llt
<br />the only polnta from whIcb Calltornla can
<br />We ua ..ater ot the Colom.do Rlver Byatem
<br />lU't' on the lIUIlnetream aOO'l'e Ul<<una Dam,
<br />tlJere berng no trlbutarlN In tha.t State. Thill
<br />tact, I thlnli:. leadII the Court to the Inference
<br />that the b'lbutarlell wblch come In below
<br />Laguna Dam contain WAlen to which Call-
<br />101'018 bas no rlgbta. The oontroveray dOQ
<br />co~rn the watel'1l of the lower ulbutarlea,
<br />hut QDly Illdlrect1J. California dON not Hoelr.
<br />th~ ....ate:rs. She merely ae-eka to have them
<br />tab'n Into eonstderatlon In the fonnul.. that
<br />determlnea the J,llocatlon betwf!e'n h..r and
<br />"'''''=
<br />Another hTeleVRncy Is the f~t that only
<br />2',2'$ of the Colorado River drainage bwn
<br />Ia In C..UfornJa. although 90':\ of the water
<br />which California appruprl..te8 leaves the
<br />bd.aln nev..r to return. U we w..re d..aling
<br />with problema of rqultahle apportiomnrnt,
<br />ILl we wrro In Nel)ra."a v. Wlloml"17, 32.5 u.s.
<br />68ll. that factor would be re1ev.nt to oW'
<br />problem. And It would be relennt In cue
<br />...... were d<!a1lng with lltlgatlon ooncerntnr
<br />waters In ucesa of the amnu"t grantecl Call.
<br />fomla undu the Project Act. But It Is ir.
<br />relevant hero beeo.la4I the only jusUdable
<br />question that Involves the volume r1l water Is
<br />one that concerlUl the lIOUrce of lupply out
<br />of whlch Ca.ltfornla'. 4.400.000 acre-f~t will
<br />be Illtatl.Nt-a mattot'r which I think Con.
<br />gresII reeolved dllJerenUy than baa the Court.
<br />Third. Is a mood about th.. eontro"'..nry
<br />that auggelSte that b..re. u In the C88eI m-
<br />vol\'l.tlr multlput'p(lOle Federal dl.JJUl. Federal
<br />control of naVigable It.reaJIu eotltrols thla
<br />llUgaUon. The right of the Ped..~ Govern.
<br />ment to the flow of the rtream Is "ot n.n l&Iue
<br />here. We deal \II1th . Vl'ry unique feature of
<br />the Irrlptlon lawa of the 17 Western Stare..
<br />Th.. quelltlon Is not what' COn~ baa
<br />authority to do, but rather th.. klnd of
<br />~e under Which CongrNI hae bu.IJt this
<br />and oth..r Irrlgntlon systems 1n the Wftlt.
<br />Heretofon thole reg1m1!:lJ have bftn po$ited
<br />on the theory that .tate law dewrm1n... the
<br />allotment of wnwn coming thro~ the
<br />irrigation ClUIaIa that nn! fed by the fedet'lll
<br />......
<br />Much 111 written these d.Ilys about judlcla1
<br />Iaw-malI:lng: llIld f'very Kholll!' knO'WI that
<br />judges who construe .tatuLl'e mum; of neee..
<br />.Ity If'gtslnte lntent.ltlnlly, to paraphmae Mr.
<br />.Justice Cn.rd=, 5e1~ Writings 0949
<br />Hall ed.), p. 160. 'Ibfl pnwnt cue is dUl'I'r-
<br />fOnt. It ....tn. I thln.lr.. be marked as the
<br />b&ldeflt attempt by Jude... In modern urn...
<br />to apln their own phllaeophy Into the fabrle
<br />ot thl! law. In derogatlon Of thl! wUl ot the
<br />If'gtslaturl'. The Pfll'H'nt d~lslon. IlS Mr.
<br />.JustlC'e Uulan aho-. grants the fedenll
<br />bureaucracy a power .nd c:ommand OVl'f
<br />'9...to.'r rlghtll In the 17 Westoorn St.tK that
<br />It nl'\.er baa had. that It a1...aYI ....nted. that
<br />It could nner peMluadl' Cons:r- to grant.
<br />and that th.1lI Court up to no. baa CO...III.
<br />toontly refuaed to~. Our rullnp
<br />heretofore ha~ ~n conatatent with the
<br />prlnelplca of ~a.mation law ntabllahed by
<br />Congre&8 both in nonnavigable Itreama
<br />(leku v. Foz, 300 U.s. 82. ll+-961 aod In
<br />na1"\gabll' on..... .Vdmuka v. Wyomln17, 3~5
<br />
<br />U.s. ~. 1112. 'Ibl' rights of thl' UnIted
<br />5tat.e;8 as atorl'r of ....~ In western proJf'ct.a
<br />h... been dllltlneUy undentood to be ItDiply
<br />that of "a carrll'J' and dllltrtbutor of water."
<br />feke. v. Fm, ","pr4. p.". AI...e Rated In
<br />/VeMuk4 v. Wromj~, ~p"f1. p. 1114:
<br />"The property right In the watet right la
<br />llO'para.te and dlaUnct from the property right
<br />In the rl.\6eJ'Vo\nl, dltclule or canal.. The
<br />wa!oer right la appurtenlUlt to the IPld. the
<br />owner or which la the appropriator. The
<br />water rllIht la acquired by perfecting an ep'
<br />proprlation, 1.1'.. by an actual dlv..relot> fol.
<br />lowed by an application within a re&>lOnabll!
<br />t1m1! of the water to a benetl.c1al uall."
<br />And tbat rCllult Willi reached I'ven thougb
<br />under thoee other projects. as under the
<br />present one. thl' 8f'ocrl'tary had broa.d pow..n
<br />to make contr.....ta governing tbl' !De and dl._
<br />poelUotl Of thlt etored ....ter. See. t. 17, 43
<br />U. S. C. '1389. <<0.
<br />'Ibe ml'n who wrote tbe Project Act WeTe
<br />fam.1llar with wlIllltnn lI'atoor law. W,ornfn17
<br />v. COM>r-odo. 253 U.s. 419, b...d rec..ntly beoon
<br />dl!l.'lded. boldlng that prlorlly of spproprla.
<br />lion was the dl'Urmlnlng factor In rea.chlng
<br />an equitable .pportlonment betw~n two
<br />Weatern Stau.. Id...t 470. Tet. S, Rf'p.
<br />No. 61504. 69th Cong.. bt SesI'. ~6-27. contalM
<br />no auueetlon that Con~ by 1 5. .... da-
<br />placlllg a dOl:trlne _ Important to these
<br />Wm..rn 8taUa u thl' doct.rlne of Nlzln hIlS
<br />been to Ull! devl'lopment 01 Anglo-American
<br />property 1.'00'. IWlte&d, only 25 IIn... of that
<br />"'port .,.., devoted. to 1150. and thou linea
<br />el8rly aupport Mr. JUltlce Harlan'a con.
<br />cholon Ulat Ule ~tlon wu delllgned prl-
<br />ma.rUyasaflnanel6ltool.
<br />The prlllclple that ....ter prlorlU... are gov.
<br />erned by atate la... la df!e'P"I!ated In weat.ern
<br />reclamatJon law. In AJ'l1u. of the upr_
<br />command Of 114 of the Project Act. which
<br />maIr.... Ibe aJ'ltem of appropr1atlon under
<br />.tate la. dl'wrmln, who has the prtlKlUes.
<br />th, Secnltary of Interior Ia riven the rIght
<br />to determtn.. the prlOrlUu by admlnllltratlve
<br />/l4t. No. one ean recetv.. hla priority be.
<br />c.uae he Is the moat worthy DemOl:rat or
<br />RepubllclUl. u the case may be.
<br />Th<l' decllllon today, reaultlng III th<l' eon-
<br />t...10n between thl! problem of priority of
<br />w.Ll'r rlgbta and the public power problem.
<br />has made th.. dream 01' federal bureauc.
<br />racy coml' lrul! by granting It., for tile tI.:rst
<br />time, the life-and-death power of dlspensa.
<br />tlon of w.ter rlghta long admlnlatl'rl!<1 ac-
<br />cording toatau law.
<br />n
<br />At ~ul' of tbl! othl'r main phu.e of the
<br />CI1$111lI the meanlngof theCallfornla Ilm.ll.ll..
<br />tlon oont."\ln~ In 14(a) of the Project Act.
<br />The Court. h03Ol'ever, doeI not U8e the present
<br />l1tlptlon Il6 an ~on to determ1ne Arl.
<br />IlOnA" and California.. rlgbta under tlJat
<br />At:t. bu~ as.. \'f'hll:le for maklng a wbolly nl'w
<br />apportionment or the ....ten In the Lower
<br />BaaJn and ~urn.lDg over all unresolnd prob--
<br />tems to the Secretary of the lnterlOC'. The
<br />Court accompUe.h1!lll thl$ by d!&tortlng both
<br />the history and Iangwl<<e of tbl' Project Act.
<br />The COurt r..llrs hl!avU:r on the terma and
<br />htatory of a propoaed trl....tate compact. au.
<br />thorlzed by lotta) b1it "I!t'('r odopted b, the
<br />St4te. con<<T11ed.. "i.::., Art:c..... Calf!OMIU1
<br />am! Ne"llda.. Thl' pro~ trl-4tatoo compart
<br />P'Ovtdl'd for a dlvlalon 01 tributary ...atera
<br />Idl'ntJeal to that II1tIde by the Collrt.1n8olar
<br />as tbe alia Ia .vrnnled to Arlzlonll. The
<br />CoUrt In rl'allty "nfot"eetl Ita tntM'pretaUon
<br />of the propooed trl-et..at.e compact and 1m.
<br />polI('lIlt.'" tenna upon Callfornla._
<br />The Court. hO'li'l!ver, cannot t1nd In thl!
<br />propoeed trl....tate compact (th.. oue that waa
<br />nl'vl-'J' .pproved) an allocatlon 01 thl' trlbu.
<br />tarlee other than the OUa; and In Order to
<br />JUfitlfy thf'1r allocation to Arlzona It Is forced
<br />to turn to the k>rnur. of "propoaala IUId
<br />countf'r propoaala over th.. YIPan." 11UIt.ad of
<br />to the 16Il.gUage of the ProJeoct Act. The
<br />reault Ia the Court'a. not that of DDngr_,
<br />whoel' Intent .1' baVl' been aUf'<! upon to
<br />
<br /><
<br />
<br />dlseover and ell'ectua!.e. The congr_ltonal
<br />intent Ia npreaed In 1 4(al. whl..h provldea
<br />that California .hall be 1Im1ted. to th.. u&e of
<br />4.400.000 acrl'.r....t "of the...ten; apportlonf'd
<br />to the Lower Bulo St.ntn by paragrllph (a) Of
<br />Arth:lI' m of thl' Colon.do Rlver compact~
<br />(tbe compACt that .... .Ppl'oved) and to
<br />not morl! than half of "any ..xc.... or lIW'plUl
<br />....tera unapporUoned by lIlIold compowt.'"
<br />Th_ wat.era are dl't1.ned In thl' Colorado
<br />River ComplK"t IL6 -",..-tern w.t..""" and not as
<br />wat.... In themallUltrl.am. Yet the Court
<br />r_trlew Callfornl.. to molnJ/treom u:GI.......
<br />That III th.. _nee of the dlll'I'r..nel' belween
<br />~"
<br />m
<br />All I rl'ad the Colara.do River Compact and
<br />14(.) of the Project Act. California !Jl I'n-
<br />tltted to lLdd IIJI uses of liylltoom ....ater. by
<br />Lowl" Baaln Statl'a 1n lbl! trtbutarlea to
<br />thoee wa!.era available In the malDlltremn to
<br />deunnlne (1) how mUch watoor lih.. can
<br />talr.e out of the tI.rIt 7.$00,000 acre-f....t .p.
<br />portioned to the Lower Baaln States by M.
<br />tlcll' In (.). .nd (2) wheth" th..n are
<br />eI<;:N3 or .urplus sYlItem .....ure, Includlne
<br />Artlel.. IJI(b) waUra, of ...hlcb Call10rnlli
<br />has . right to no more than one-half.
<br />I dtaagree with the Court.. conclusion that
<br />14(..) of tJ1e Project Aet refe" only to the
<br />.....ter flowing In the maln.tree.m belo.... Lee
<br />FI'rry. The Project AlOt IIJlellU clearly, a.nd
<br />only. In tenna of thl' waure apportioned to I
<br />the Lo'Wl'J' BalIln Stat.ea by Article DI(a) of
<br />the Com~. L"'b. Callfornla may take no I
<br />more than 4.400,000 acre-feM "ot the _tel'll
<br />apportioned to the lower buill. States by
<br />p;lragrnph (a) of Artlel.. nI of the CoI<<ado
<br />Rlvl'r Compa.ct. ~ ArUcle nI(.) of thl'
<br />Compilct apportlona "from lbl! Colorado
<br />Riv..r S)'5tc!m 10 perpetuity to the Upper
<br />Baaln and to the Lown Ba.l;ln. re"~t1Yely,
<br />the nclulllve benl'llelal eonaumptlve use of
<br />7.500.000 acre.fnt ot waur pl!r annum.~
<br />'Ibl' term "Colorado Rtver Syatem" la de.
<br />fined In Artlcll! U(a) all InlOludlnc the entire
<br />malnllt.reo.m and the trlbutarlel..
<br />There la, moreover, not a word In Sen.te B
<br />Report No. 6112. 70th Cong.. lat Se&I., report.
<br />lng thl! Project Act. that Indleat.ea. .ugg...!.I.
<br />Or lmpllea that the Colorado RI""r III to be
<br />d1vldl'd and CalItornl. or any othl'r Lower ,
<br />Baaln State r...t.l"tl:ted to mallU1tream w...~.
<br />The Report Indeed lipeata of ....othrnnlnlf
<br />the Colorado River Compact" (Id.. p. HlI,
<br />which I'mbrace. the I'ntlre rlvf'r lI)'atem 111
<br />the United Statta. not JUlIt thl' malnatrl!llDl.
<br />See Article D(a). ArIzona., feans that C&II-
<br />fond. Would lAlr.e 150.400.000 &ere.f....t from
<br />the flnt 7,600.000 ute-feet. if lbl! enUre
<br />lIy11tenl...erewoedasthellOure.eare,Ithlnlr.,
<br />unfounded. Out of th..-lInt. 1,600.000 ae....
<br />feet of lIrate'm water OalifornJ.a. 'liould be
<br />entlt~onIy &o4,olOO.oooacre-feet. Outer
<br />the balance 01' 3,100.000 aere.feoet, C:allfornl.t.
<br />would bl' ""eluded.
<br />How much of th!$ 3,100.000 acre-teel
<br />ahould go to Ar1zona and how mlllOh to Ne-
<br />vad., NI'. MeI1co. and Utah eaDnot be deter.
<br />mlIled. on tbtl M'OOrd. Ule relatl"I' tlndlngl
<br />oot being madl' In light ot tbe conatructlon
<br />....hleb hM ~n glnn to thl' ProJf'Cl; Act. the
<br />COfnpact, ltnd the Limitation Act. We can.
<br />not taka .. a guide thl! provtllona In the al'O<
<br />ODd pll.l'llgl':lIph of 1 4(.) of \.he Project Act,
<br />1I~., the 300.000 acre-f.....t propotl6l'd for:SO....
<br />vnda and tbe 2.800.000 aac-feet prClpQeed f~
<br />Arizon.. botC(lu,", Ih~prot.-uI01l~corrw! ....to
<br />pIa, (mIll if A~, Callj'oMlloll, and NeNda
<br />C'nt~ 4 compact. I<'''~h to date th('1/ h4~
<br />n.ot dOfte. The dlvl5lon of 3,100,000 acre-teet I
<br />should, I think, be lnllde amonjl: ArUona,
<br />Nnada. New Mexlco, and Utah punuant to
<br />the prlnclplee of equitable .pponlonml'nt.
<br />Nl"bruka v. Wromfll17. S2S U.s, S89.
<br />
<br />i
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />'Thl' relevant provtllona or the Pro~
<br />AlOt. the California Umltatlon Act. and 'I.blI
<br />Colorado Rlvl-'J' Cornpaet are aet fonh In tbJ
<br />App"'n<;l1ll.
<br />. Sl'e the .pprndlll tor th.. rell'vant por
<br />tlonll or Artll:'\.. UL
<br />
|