|
<br />1963
<br />
<br />0019110
<br />
<br />CO"GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
<br />
<br />9117
<br />
<br />lIoned by the Oumpact_ The permitted
<br />agre.e-m"nt a.Il1O.WI to allow Arizona f!llclualve
<br />UM at the 01111. HI"",., wholly!,..... trom any
<br />Mulcall obligatlOll, a po.1t1.,>U ArlZQna bad
<br />taken If(lm the beglnnlnK. 8edlo08 S and
<br />8(bl of the ProJ....t Act made provl.510M for
<br />the aa1e of the stand watfl'll. The Secr..taty
<br />of the Intomw "'u authorIZed by , 5 "under
<br />such ,.,neul regul&tLons N be may preecTI~.
<br />to contract lor Ule atof1l&t' of water in aa.ld
<br />reservOlr and for thl! delivery theNot at .ucb
<br />polnUl on tho 1'1\"<:'1 and all f1ald ea.nal u llUly
<br />be agrnd UPOn. for 1rrlgatlon a.nd domestic
<br />use.:' 5e<:t1on I) rl'q\ll~ these oontracu to
<br />be "for Pl'rmAnlL'nt Hrvlce" and fUrtMT pro-
<br />vided. "No person 5ha.ll h.\~ Of M entitled
<br />to have the uae for any PUTpOH of the water
<br />,tored a.o atoreaald "Il<:ept by conll-act mllde
<br />.. h..rl!ln ataUd." ~Uon 8(b) provided
<br />that the See"'tary'. contracts would be aub.
<br />Jeet to lU>y compact dividing the ~netl.te 01
<br />thl! water betw....n ATlllOnt., Call!ornJa, and
<br />Nevada. or JUly two or them, approv~d b)'
<br />Congrese on (n' b~tore JRnua:ry I, 1929. but
<br />that any aucb compact appro.ed after that
<br />d&te mOUld be ".ubl~t to all contr....,.., It
<br />any. 1nAd~ b)' the 8e<':reta:ry of the Interior
<br />under Met!on 0 hen>or prior to the daW. or
<br />auch f1ppro"al alld co~nt by Congr_. R
<br />The Project Act ~e etfectlve on June
<br />25. 1929, by Prealdentlal Proclamation," after
<br />ahr; states. Including California. had raUlled
<br />the Colorado River CompA.ct and the Cali_
<br />fornia legulature had BCCepted the Ilmlta_
<br />Uon of 4.400.000 acre-fut.. as ~qulred by
<br />the Act. Neither tbe thr_ States ~ any two
<br />of them ever entered Into any apportLonment
<br />compact S,II aUthot1u<t by 114(&) &nd 8(b).
<br />Arter the coruotructlon of Boulder Dam the
<br />Secntary or the lntenat'. purporting to act
<br />under the authorlt)' of the Project Act. made
<br />eont.n.cta with Vll.rloUll water tlllera In Cali_
<br />fornia fOl' 6.362.000 acre_r_t. WHh Nevada
<br />for 300.000 Il<."n!-t_t. and with Arizona ror
<br />3.800.000 &ere_teet ot water trom that atored
<br />&tL&Jr.eM....d.
<br />'lbe Special Ma.&ter appointed by thl.
<br />Court round thIl.t the COlomdo RI,'er Com-
<br />pACt. the la.... of pnOl" appropTlation. and tbe
<br />doetrlne of equitable apport!onment-b)'
<br />wbleb doctrine thla Court In the a~nce or
<br />atatuw. riNlOlvea Intel1ltate claims according
<br />to the equltl.........:to not control the ianlea In
<br />thl.I cue. 'lbe Muter conclUdI!'d th.t.. alnee
<br />tbe Lo""~r Bl>.aln Stare. had ra.tled to mue a
<br />compact to allocate the waten among them_
<br />aeJVN as aUthorlU'd b)' 114(al and 8(b), tbe
<br />Seocretary'a ront.r'aCta wttb the StatN had
<br />wit.b1n tbe atatutot}' actleme 01 114(.1. 6,
<br />and 81b) dl"e("ted, an. apportionment ot tbe
<br />waten or the malnatTeam which. according
<br />to thft Mallter, wen the only w.ten to be
<br />apportioned under W Act. 'lbe Master tur_
<br />thM' held that. In the eVllnt Of a ahorto.ge of
<br />water making It impossible tor the- 5e-cretar)'
<br />to 8Uppl)' all the waUl' due CalUornla. Ari-
<br />zona.. and Nevada under Ulelr eontract.3. the
<br />burden ot the a.hortnge must _ borne b)'
<br />euh State In proporllon to her ahan or the
<br />tint 7.500.000 ~_tl!t't allocated to the Lower
<br />Baaln. thnt la. 4.417.5 by Caurornla. 3.817.5
<br />by Arlzon.. and .3n.6 by NeVada., withOUt
<br />regvd to the law ot prior npproprtaUon.
<br />Artzona. Nevnd... and ~h.. UnIted Statel;
<br />aupport wtl.h few uoepUons the anaIya1II.
<br />oonclU51ona. and r'l'<<>rnmendlltlona or the
<br />Special AtaateT'. repon. These- P"Tues agree
<br />that Congreu did not leave dlvlalon of tbe
<br />watera to an <!'qultable apportionment by 1.hJa,
<br />Court bUt IlllItead cJ"eatoo It. IOOInp",henatve
<br />8t:1.tUtOry .,beme ror the allocation of mun_
<br />atream water'll. Arizona. h","ver. bel1ev9
<br />that the allocation formul. Ktabllahl!'d b)'
<br />the SecretarY'8 COIltracta was In fact the
<br />formula requ1~ b)' the Act... The United
<br />BUt_. along wtth Callfornl&. thtnka the
<br />Maar.r ahould nO't have Inva.lIdated the pro-
<br />
<br />-46 Stat. 3000 P929).
<br />.. C'8.Ilfornla Umltatlon Act. Cll.I. Stat. 1929.
<br />('.16.at38.
<br />
<br />vlllona or the Arizona and Nevada water
<br />eontractll reqUiring thoae State. to deduct
<br />tTom their aUocaUona any dhenlona or WateT
<br />above Lake MetId wblch reduce the 110'117 Into
<br />that take.
<br />Ca.ll!omla la In baalc d~ment wtth
<br />.lmoat all of tbe Maat...... Report. She
<br />Ill'guea that the Project Act. IIl1:e the Co101"ado
<br />River Compact, deala with the entire ColD-
<br />rado River BylJtem. not JWlt the malnatream.
<br />Thla would mean that dlveralona 1rIthln
<br />ArIl'lOn. and Nevada or tl"lhutlU"J" ...te...
<br />tlowlng In thoae Stata. would be charged
<br />aga.lnat their .pportlonmenta and that. be_
<br />cause tributary ....ter would be added to the
<br />malnant'lLIll water In COIl:>putlng U>f! 1I.nt
<br />7.600.000 acre-teet available to the StateS.
<br />thertl would be a g-rPllter UII:l'Ubood ot a aw_
<br />phil. of which CIl.lllornla geta one-halr. The
<br />reault of Caltrornla'. argUment YOUld be
<br />much more water tor CaIlrornla and much
<br />leM ror Arluma.. CaI1tarnla al80 argues that
<br />the Act eelthM' allocates the Colorado Rlnr
<br />water. nor gtves the S<<retary authority to
<br />rna.lr.e an allocatlon. Hatb"r 8he takes the
<br />poe.IUon that the JUdicial doctrine at f!QuI_
<br />table apporUonment gh'ln~ tull Inte...tAte
<br />etf~t to the traditional western water Ia.w at
<br />prior approprlaUon abOUld determine thf!
<br />rlgbta ot thf! partiN to the water. P1naJly.
<br />C.urorn1a d8.1ma that In II.lIY f!vent the Act
<br />d,- not control In Urne or 8horta<<e. Under
<br />8ucb elrcum8tanOl'Ol. ahe "'Y" th1a Court
<br />ahould dlvld" the 'Wewn aeeordlng to the
<br />doctrine or equItAble .pportlonment or the
<br />IIIW ot prior appropTlatlon. either at which.
<br />me aJ'guea. abould reault In prot.e<:tlng her
<br />prior usee.
<br />Ow Jurl8dlctlon to entertaln thu ,ult u
<br />not challenged and could not well be unce
<br />Art. m. 13. or the Conetltution gives th1a
<br />Court original jl1rl8dlctlon or actlona In
<br />whleb States a.re PaTties. In elIf!I'elalng that
<br />Jurtadlctloll. We &re m1ndrul ot thla C\:>Urt',
<br />o1ten t'lIprlllllled pre!e~nce 1.ba.t. wh~re polI_
<br />athle. StAtes ...ttte their conU"oven1es b)'
<br />"mut\lll.1 accommodation and acnen\ent.M.
<br />Tb(Wit' eaaea and othe.... mue It e11NU". how_
<br />"vel'. that thla Court doea have a sertous
<br />responaiblllt)' to IldJlldlcat.e (:RAN when
<br />theTe are actUAl. exutlng .controvenlca OVel'
<br />bow Inuratat.e streama ahould be appnr_
<br />t1onl!'d among States. 'lbl.!l caae II the mOllt
<br />recent pbaae or II eontlnWDi oontrOVet'll)'
<br />OVeT the wateT ot the Oolorado RIVeT. which
<br />the Statea dNplw repeaUd f!tforte have been
<br />unable to settle. ReaoluUon oi th~ dl8pute
<br />TeQUITl'Il .. dewrmlnatlon or wlul.t apportion-
<br />ment.. It an)', Ia made by the ProJ~t Act and
<br />what pow,,", ant ronfen"ed by the Act upon
<br />the ~tary or Interior. UnI_ many ot
<br />the "'u"," pTeM'nkd hen! are adjudicated.
<br />the eonllletlng claims or the ))8rtlea wiU cOn_
<br />tlnUf!. a.s the)' do now. to mlae lIertouadoubt5
<br />as to the extl'1ltoJ e-aeb St.ete.s rtght to .p_
<br />pmpTla.te water l'rom the Colorado RIver Sys.-
<br />tem tor exmlng or new~. In Ul1a altUII..
<br />Uon we ahould and do elu'rclse our JUTllMllc-
<br />Uon.
<br />t. ~AT10N or WATDI ...1oI0N(I THE STUltS
<br />"NO DtsT1I.IBtrT10r< TO VSKU
<br />We have ooncludl!'d. rOl" tl'aSOna to be
<br />atlted. that Congress In paaalng the ProJe<:t
<br />Act Intended to and cUd create Ita 0'll'D com.
<br />prehenaive aeheme tw" the apportionment
<br />amoug Calltornla. Arlzoua., and Nevad. 01 the
<br />ma1n8ltea.m watera ot the ColOradO RIver,
<br />Ica'f'lng eaeh State Ita tributaries. Co.ngreaa
<br />dc-elded that a roo dlvlaion or the t1ns-t
<br />7,600.000 aae.feet or ID.Il.l.n$tream water
<br />would give 4.400.000 acre-r""t to CaJUW"nJII..
<br />2.800.000 to ArJr.ona, and 300.000 to Nevada.:
<br />ArU.ona and Call1ornla would ea.eb get 0Ile-
<br />
<br />.. Col.orado V. KIZIWU, 320 U.s. 383. 392
<br />Ug~l; Netmukll v. WllOmlll4. 3:1S U.s. 589.
<br />616 (lP45\.
<br />. B.g.. K4"S..... v. ColorlSdo. 1M U.s. J~
<br />119(2): .VelC JerN1I v. New }'01'1r, 2113 Us.
<br />336(1931).
<br />
<br />halt at lU11 aurplus. Prior appTo>;a1 _
<br />therefore gtven 1n the Act fOT . b"1.etatc
<br />compact to l.rl.col"porate these terms. The
<br />States. aubJect I.(l lIub8equent congrt'MODll.1
<br />approval. wen al80 permitted to ague on
<br />a compact wltb dllJerent terma. Olvulon ot
<br />the wak'r dId not. however. depfOnd on the
<br />States. agreeing to a compoC't. rOT CongTC8lI
<br />gave the SecTelar'J' of the Interior .dequate
<br />authortl)' to aceompl18h the dlvlalon. Con-
<br />rr- dId thla b)' giving tbe &cretary POWl'T
<br />to make contracta for the dell>;eTY Of water
<br />and by providing t.hat no pl'I'1lOn could have
<br />water wltbout a. coeltllCt.
<br />Ii. Relevancy or JUdicial apportionment
<br />and Color-ado RiveT Compact: We agree with
<br />the WIUlk'r t.hat .pportlonment of the Lower
<br />Buln ....aten nf the Colorudo R.lver u not
<br />controlled by the doctrine of equitable ap-
<br />portionment or b)' the Colorudo RI\'er Com-
<br />pact. It III t.n.le that the Coun baa used tlu,
<br />dllCb"lne ot equitable apportionment to de_
<br />cide rlrer eontrovC!nlea between Statel!l."'
<br />But In thOM! CIl8C!/l Congress had not made
<br />any atAtU!.oOTY apportionment. In th~ case.
<br />....e have decided that Con(I"t!lll baa provided
<br />Ita own m~thod for allneatlng among the
<br />Lower Ba.aln States the malnatnam .ateT
<br />to wblch the)' .n entitled under W Com-
<br />pact. When! Congreu baa ao exerelllt'd Ita
<br />COllfltltuUonal power over ......te.... COUTU ha,'"
<br />no pow~r to aublltltute their own nollolla
<br />ot an "equitable apportlonment" for the
<br />.pportlonment chOM!n by COllgretl8. Nor
<br />doe. the ColOrado River Compact control
<br />thu case. Notblng In that Compact pur-
<br />porta to '"vide wl\wr among the Lower
<br />Bum States nor In any way to alJect or
<br />control an)' rutUnl .pportlonment among
<br />thOllll Stata CIC' any dJa:t:rIbutlon ot Wiater
<br />within a. State. That the Comm"'lonen
<br />wertl able to aoeompllah even a dlvulon of
<br />WlLter between thf! baalna Ia dUf! t(l what u
<br />generally II:nown IUI the "Hoover Compro-
<br />mlall":
<br />"Partlelpanta IIn the Compact nl'gOtla-
<br />Uon&] have .tated that the negotlatlona
<br />would have broll:en up but tor MT. HooveT'.
<br />propoeal: that tb" Conunlaa1on limit ita
<br />etfOTta to a dlvlalon at water between tbe
<br />UppeT basln a.rld the 10weT ba.aln, leaving t(l
<br />each buln the future Inuro.1 allocation of
<br />Ita Mar".""
<br />And In tact thla 11 all the Compa..c:t did.
<br />However. the ProJec't Act. hy rererrlng to the
<br />Compact In aeveral placH, doea mnll:e the
<br />Oompa.ct N!levant to a 11mIted extent. To
<br />begin wtth. the Aet explicitly approv9 the
<br />Compact .nd thereby a"'N a dtvlaiO'l1 of the
<br />waten betw....n the bulll8 whlob mu"" be
<br />respected. P'urlher.ln8e..eralp.l~theAct
<br />reten too tenns oontalnl!'d In th" Compact.
<br />FVr enmple. f 13 of the Aot :w1opta the Com-
<br />pact de!lnltlon Of ..domeatle..... and 16 re-
<br />quires aaUafllOtlon of "pl"t'lIl'nt pertll<.lled
<br />rlghta" a.a u.sed 1n the Compact.- OOYloU81)'.
<br />thl'f"t'!arf!. thOllll partkutar terma. though
<br />orIglnall)' tormulated onl)' tor the CompACt'a
<br />alloca.Uon at WWoter hctween bull. IU"O! InoeT_
<br />parated into the Act and are made applicable
<br />to the Project Act's allocation among Lo",'er
<br />Baaln Statea. The Act also declaree that ~he
<br />&ocretary at the Interior and the United
<br />Statee In the conatnletlon, operation. and
<br />m,a.lnterl4nce of the dam .nd other w(>tu and
<br />In the tnaklng or contmcta &hall be aubject
<br />to and controlled by the Colorado R.lver
<br />
<br />J
<br />
<br />"'B.c., wrom/llg v. Colonldo. 259 U.s. 419
<br />(1n2I: Ne~TIZJ"'<:l .. WVOYIIlllg. 325 U.s. Sll9
<br />(1945).
<br />-HR. Doc. No. 717. 80th Cong.. 2d sesa..
<br />22(1948).
<br />... 'Dxneortlc' wbenel"M' emplo~ In thla
<br />Act Bhalllncludf! water USfllI deflr>ed ltI'do-
<br />mcallc' In aald Colorado RiveT lOOInpa.ct."
<br />. The dam .Dd reacnolr ahall be URd.
<br />amollg other thtnga. for "sat18tactlon of p~...
<br />ent perfected nght8 In pursuanct' ot ATtlcle
<br />\'III Of ....d Colorado RIver compa..c:t:.
<br />
|