Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />