WSPC00820

• File Number: 8230.100.10
• Description: Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 6/4/1963
• Author: Unknown
• Title: AZ Vs CA - Legal Documents 1958-1965 - Supreme Court Opinion in Arizona Against California - Congressional Record - Senate - Pages 9414 through 9432
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

fins

~
J;>

9-!22

this national proJec~ to betlto..... We are sat_
Uled that the 8e<:re~1I power must be oon-
lItru<"d to pennlt bJrn, 'If1Ulln the boundUlea
""to down In the Act, to allocate and clb..
tribute the 1I'1Ik'1"I of tbf' m&.lWltl'<!&m of t.lle
ColondoRtver.
n. f'&OVlSlOHS lH Tllr; &EelU:T..aT's CONTI<ACTS
A. Dft'~.... 4~ Lake Mead: The Sec-
retary.. CODlnlctll with Arizona and Nevada
provide that any wa~. dlvert.ed by th~1I
Su.tH out Of the m&trn;trea.m or the trlb_
utar1ea above La.lr.1I Mead mlUt be cbll.l'ied to
their re.~lve Lower llaIIln apportlonm.mu.
The Master, how""n, t.ook the Tlew that tbe
llppOrtlOnment WILl to be IlUWIll out of the
wat.era actually .tored at La.lr.e Mead or now.
Ing In the mainstream below Lake Mead. He
thnt'fore held that the 8eeN!t.&ry waa with_
out. power to cha.rge Arl<lona and Nnada for
dlvnaloJUl made b)' them from the 2'15-mUlI
atl'e\ol:h of river betweocm Leo" Fnry and LAke
Mead" or from the tributaries above Lake
~["ad. Thll!l oonchUllon wu bued on the
Ma.sk'r', reIWJning that the Sect..ta.r,. ....
given phJ5ICAI control over the wat.enl.t.<lr"<<I
In Lake M....d ..nd not ov..r watel'll befOTe tb..y
r....ched the lut'.
Wt' hold th..t the Maatet ... correct In
deciding that the Secnury cannot reduce
water deU....rlell to ArIzona and Neva.da. by
the amount of their \I:Il'elI from trlbutarlea
above lAke Mead. for. aa we h....e held. Con-
gr_ In the Project Act Intended to appor-
tion only the IlUlllllltream. IKvlng to ..ach
State Ita own t.rIbutarl.... We dlal4l'ee. how-
enr. with the !otuter" holding that tht' Sec-
r..tary Ia pow..rl... to charle Statea fgr diver_
almlll from th.. nmllllltream above Lak.. M........
What COngr_ ...ID doing In the Project Act
WlUl provl<1lng for an apportlonm..nt among
the Lower Oaaln States of the water ."lIoca.t<'<l
to that b....ln by tbe COlorado RIv..r Compact.
'nle Lower Ba&l.1l. with wblcb COngT..............
dt'll.llng. beglll.l at Le.. hrry. and It 1iU all
the 1iater In th.. ma1nat.rewn below Lee Ferry
that ClIugr.... lnunded to dl..ld.. among th..
Btau.. Were We to nfuse the 6K'rt!'tary the
power to cbJU"ge States for dl..el'lllon. frmn
the mAllll1trelWl between Lee Ferry and th..
dam aite. we would allo", lndl..ldual State".
by making dlvel'lllons tbat deplete the J..ower
Baaln'. alloco.tlon. to upset the whole pla.n
of apportionment an1.ved at by ClInlreu.
to o.ettle the long_ltandlnl dlllpute In
the !.own Oaaln. That the congre.58lon..J. ap-
poruonmeot achem.. would be upset can
eaally be demonatrated. eallromla. for e",_
ampl... has been allotted ...00.000 acre-teet
of ma.lnstnam wawr. U ArIzOna and N..vada
can. without ~ln8 charged for It. dlnn wa_
toe. from the riv..t abov.. Lake Mea<!. then
C8llforn.1a eoul<1 not get the abare congtl!llS
Intended ber to hll"e.
B. NeVlllf4 contr4Ct: Nevada has eJIcept<'<l
to hl'r tneluslon In Paragrapb U(B) (7) ot
the Master'. 1"eC(JIJ:l.mended <1~~. whleb
provldN that "lIl.alnatearn wawr .hall be de-
livered to Uset'll In Arb:(lna. California a.nd
Nl''V&d.n. only If ronLrnctlll have ~n made by
the Sfocrewy of the tntertor. PUf'llU&.IIt to
Ii 1\ of the Bould..t Canyon ProJl'>et Act. fM
the dell."...y of such watf'r:' WbUe the
Ca.lIfomll\ contRctll art:! dlncUy with water
U8el"lli and tbs Atl&On. rontrac:t apocll1caUy
oontt'mplat.ea furth..r IUbe<>>lttact..l with a.c-
tuaJ USf'rs. It la ugued thllot tbe Nevadfl con.
tract. mAde by the Secretary directly wltb
th.. St.atoe of Nevada through beT Colorado
River Comm1aalon. ahould be eolUll.nu.d aa a
contract to dellVl'1" watt'r to the State with-
out tbe I"lf'.'"_lty of If\lbeontra.eta by th.. See-
reUU-y dLre<:l.ly ..Ith Nevnda waler users.
The Unltf'd StAtM dlsagr~a. eonwndlng tbat
prop<'fly conrtrued the Neva<1. contract. Ilk..

_ The location of Hoonr Dam Ia a reault of
engtn~rlng decla4ona. Aa Senator Pittman
point<<! out.. "There !$ no place to Impound
th.. flOOd ....aUI'll ex~pt .t the lower ..nd or
the canyon." &8 Cong. R<<. ..13 (19271.

I
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEi'<hTE

the Secr..tary'a g..n..r.l contrKt wlth Ari-
zona. does not ..llhauat tbe Seentary'a po......r
to require N..vad. 1iater use~ oth..r than
the State to ma.ll:e further eontraeta. TO
eonatn>e the Nevada oontra.et. oth..nvlae. the
Government .u"""", would brtng It In oon-
tllc:t ....ith the pro1'laIon of I tl of the Project
Ac:t that "No pel'8Olllball have or be entitled
to ba1''' the use fOl" a.ny purpoae of th.. wa.t.c-r
.tored .. a.foreeald elCt!pt by contract [with
tbe Se<:retaryl mad.. .. bereln stated." Ac_
e..pta.nce of N....acIa..a conuntlon her.. would
not only undermine thla plain congr-.!onaJ
requirement that water U8el"8 have oont.rac:ta
with the Seentary hUt would IUt..wlN trlUUl-
tl'r frorn the Se<:retary to N....ada a larg.. part.
If not .n. of the Sec:retary'. pow..r to <1eter-
mln.. 1iltb whom be wU! <lOntra.ct and on
what term&. We have a.l-nady held that tbe
eontr&Ctu.1 pov;er granted the Secretary
cannot be diluted In thla manner. We
therefore r..Ject N....Ad... contention.
m. AI'POJlTfONMDlT "''''D CON'nlACTS I'"
TIMI: or SII_T...GI
We have .greed wltb tbe Mutt'r th.t the
Secretary'. eontract.s vrtth Artzona for
2.800.000 aere-reet of water and 1iUb Nevada
for 300.000. tosether wIth the limitation of
CallfMnla to ..400,000 a.ere-f,",\. effect a
,",lid appol'Uonment ot the flret 7l\OO.000
aere-feet of malnat.ream wate'r In the Lo1ier
Ba&ln. Th~r.. ",main. tb.. queeUon of what
.hall be done In tUne of Ihortage. The Mu-
ter. ....hU. deellnlnit to make an, ,ftn<1lnp
aa to what fUtur.. .upply mlgbt be "",peeted,
nevertbel_ decldHi th.t the ProJect'Act and
tbe SeCretary.. contracta require the Secr..-
tary In caae or abMtage to divide the- burden
among th.. three 8tau. 10 tbla proportion;
California 4..17.6: Arl:u>na 2.817.5: Nevsda
-317.5. While pro rata sharing of ,....tt'r
abortagea ae-effi8 equitable on It. face.- more
C'OIUIldffed Judgm~nt mllY demonatrate qUite
the OODtn.ry. Cer!..ll.lnl, we mould no' bind
'he Secretary to tblll formula. We have h..ld
tbat thl' Secr..tary III veated wHh ronald..rable
control over the apportionm..nt ot Colorado
RI..er watera. And neither the Project Act
nor tbe water eont.ra.eta requlno the uae of
any particular formula for apportlonlnit
Mortait.... Wblle the Secr..tary mUllt folio....
the atandarda aet out In the Act. he ne'l'..r_
tbel... Ia free to choe.e among the reeor~
nlud m..tboda Of apportionment or to devtae
reaaon.ble m..thoda of hla o....-n. Thill cbolce.
..., we ..." It, III prtmarUy hili, not the M...~
tt'r" or enn oura. And th.. Secretary maJ'
or may not oonchufe tbat a pro rata division
I.IIIthebestaolut.lon.
It must be rem..mbered that tbe Seen-
tary'. de<:lsl.on may have an ..ffect not only
on lrrlgat1Gn \UH but alao on other lmpor_
tant funet1Ol1l1 for wblcb Gong_ brOUitht
th1a great pro.)eet Into belIlg-ftood control.
Ilnprovem..nt of na..lgatlon. reculat.lon ot
flaw. and generation and cl1atrlbutlon of ..Iec-
trlc power. Requiring the SecretuJ to pro-
rate 5bortages 1iould Ilrlp hlm of the very
pow..r ot choice wblch we Wnk COngr....
fM reaaoDll aatlafll.Ctoty to It. TelIte<1 In blm
and which we abould not impair or take
awaJ' from blm. For tbe aame rensona we
c.a.nnot ac~pt CaIlfgrnla'a C'Ontentlon that
In caaeof ahortllgeeaeh 8tate'aall.a.nOf ....ter
,I:lould be <1etermlIled bJ' ttle Judicial doetrlne
of equItable .ppOrtlonment or by the law
of jlrlor appropriation. 'I'h....eo pr1oClplell.
while they may proTld.. aome guldllnc.., an
not blndlng upon the 5eeretarJ' wben. aa
h..re, COngr..... vrtth tull power to do 80, haa
pro..lded that th.. watera of a navigable
atream a.baU be barne-med. COfI6l"rvHi. lltored.
and dlJllrtbut.ed throUlh a 10..ernmental
"looney un<1er alrtatutory schem...

.. Proration at aborta.ge Ia the: ~hod
~ upon by the Unlted Sta.tefI an<1 MexICO
to adjust Melr.I~" share ot COIC8'ado Rlwor
water abould there be IIIIluftl,elent watn to
aupply ...ch country'a apporUonment.

June .4

None or thla Ia to _y thAt In CAlle of abort.-
ag". tbe Secntary c:a.nnot adopt a method
of proration or that he may not lay .tn'N
upon priority of use. local law. and CuatolDB.
or &.IIY other facto... that might be belpful In
reacblnit an Informed JUditIDl'Dt In h.rmony
1iltb the Ac:t. the best Interesta of the Ba4ln
8t11tea. and the welfare of th.. Nation. It will
be UIne ..nough fM the eourt.I to Intervene
1ihen and It the Secretary. 10 ma.lr..lnit .ppor-
tlonmenta or rontraeta. deTlatee from tbe
atandards ClII1grN$ baa.,t for blm to follOw.
Including bla obllptlon to respect ..pr......nt
perfected rllbta.M.. of tht' date tbe Act III.....
paaa.ed. At tbla tim.. th.. Secretary baa mllde
no decllllon at &11 based on an a.c:tual or
anticipated ahortage of water, and eo th..~
Is no a.c:t1on of bla In thlll napect for ua to
review. FInally." the Maater polnted out.
ConlP"_ It1ll baa brooad powers over t.hla
navigable International Itream. COngr....
ean undoubtedlJ' reduce or enlarre th.. Sec-
retary.. po....er If It w1lIb.... Unl_ and until
It doea. 11'.. lea..e In the ha.nda of the Sec-
retary. lII'her.. COngr_ pl&ee'd it. full po,....r
to eontrol. matl/l.P. and operate the Govern.
ment'. Colorado River worlr.a .nd to make
contra.e'te for the &ale and d..llvery of water
on auch terrna .. are not prohibited by the
ProJect Act.
tv. 4BlZO"'4-NKW MDICO C1n.... COI<T!IOVDllT
Artzona an<1 New MU.leo ptt'Mnte<l the
Master with confllctlng c:1.1In5 to water In
the Olla RJver. the trtbutary that rIaea In
New Meltleo a.nd flowa tbrough ArIzona. Hav-
Ing determ10ed that trIbutarlea are not With-
In tbe regul..tory provlalona of tho! Project
Act the Mastel" h..l<1 that thla Interstate €Ita-
pUle .hould be decided und..r tbe prlnelplea
of equitable apportlQn.ment. Atter helIrtnit
e..ldene.. on thlll laaue. the Ma$ter aeupted .
eompromtee aettleDlent agreed. upon by theM
States and Inoorpot1lted. that IN!ttl..ment In
ilia f1ndlnp and conc.lUlllona. and In Part
IV (AI (B) (CJ (O) of hla r<<ommended de-
cne. No e",c..ptlona ban be<-n l'Ued to thelN!
nocomm..ndatlona by ILZIY of the p.rtles an<1
they .re .oe:ordlnitly accepted by ua. Ell~pt
tor th06ll dlaeUlllOed In Part V we are not re_
quired to decide any other dlspUtH betw~n
tributary Uletll or between malnatrKm and
tributary U&en.
Y. CLAI.... or TI-IIl VNlTI:D IlTATI:lI
In tbeae pl"oceedlnP. the Unlt<'<l S~
haa _rted clal~ to w","ten. tn the main
river and In 80me of the tnbutal1ea fot" use
on fndlan Re6en'aUona. N.tlonal l"oreIlt&.
Rec.:reatlon.a.1 and Wlldllf.. Areu-. and otbn'
gov..rnment I.nda an<1 worm While Ole
MlUiter pa.&&ed upou aome of t.heo;e c41rna. b..
decllnf'd to nach other$, PBi_t1omlarly tho&e
relaUng to tributarlea. We appro..e hla de--
cla1~ aa to which cla.Ima requlted adJudlm-
UOII. ItIId Ultewlae w.. approve the <locree be
recommended fot the covern.ment c1..J.InlI b..
d1<l decide. We lbaIJ dlac~ only the c:1a1ma
ot the Unlted Statea on be.ha1f of tbe- In<1ta.n
Re&er..atlons.
The Oovo;orWllC'nt. on behalf of f!.Ye Indla.n.
!tQerraUoDll 10 At~na. Ca.l1tornla.. an<1 1"'e-
Tad.. llBaeI"ted rllbta to water in the main-
.trW1m of tbe COltmado River." Tbe COlo-
ndo lUver R.....rv..Uon. loc:ate<:i partl,. III
ArIzo.n.. and partly In CalltornJ.. la U1e
targ....,r. 11. Wl!.6 originally ereated. by an Act
01' Conitft'U In 1865.'" but It4I areo waa Ia.Uor
lner~ by E:llecutlv.. Order.- Other rt'6eT-
.

I
.

.

"
j

.. 'nle R_nauoua were Cb..meh~vl. co...
cope.h. Ywna. Colorado RI"f'r. and Fort
:'10111'0".
00 Act of Marcb3. 1865. 13 Stat. 541.569.
'" See ElIecutl.... Ordel'll of Novembfor 22.
1873. NoYo;ombet 16. 187.. and May IS. 1876.
See alao ElteCUtI..... Order ot Nov..mb..r 22.
Iii/IS. These onlera m.y be found In I U.6.
Dept. of Inter1or. bec:utlve Orde... RelllUnl
to Indla.n ReaervaUona 6-7 (19121; 2 id.. at
$---6(1922).