WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJ2033 42 ASSEMBLY INTERIM COMMITTEE ON WATER on how to conserve and divide the waters; and the ultimate action by Congress at the request of the States creating a great system of dams and public works nationally built, controlled, and operated for the purpose of conserving and distributing the water." Arizona claimed 2.8 million acre-feet and one-half of the surplus allocated to the Lower Basin based npon the mainstream supply only. This would permit Arizona to utilize 2.0 acre-feet of tributary flow in addition to its 2.8 million acre-feet mainstream allocation. At the time of the case, existing Arizona projects consumed less than half this amount. The remainder is contemplated to be used largely by the pro- posed Central Arizona Project. On the other hand, California claimed that both mainstream and tributaries should be considered in the total available. On this basis (including the Gila River System, tbe major Arizona tributary), almost all of Arizona's entitlement would be already utilized. The court's opinion includes a detailed examination of the legislative history of the Project Act." The Special Master similarly examined the question. With only Justice Douglas dissenting, the court held that the Congress intended to include only the mainstream flows when it enacted the Project Act. Thus the tributaries, which can deliver an estimated 2.0 million acre-feet annually, were lost to California in the computation of its allocation. The court stated, "'vVe have concluded. . . that Congress in passing the Project Act intended to and did create i.ts own comprehensive scheme for the apportionment among California, Arizona and Nevada of the mainstream waters of the Colorado River, leaving each State its tributaries." The court (agreeing with the master) adopted the view that the Colorado River Compact, thc law of prior appropriation and the doctrine of equitable apportionment (the doctrine used by the court in the absence of statute in resolving interstate claims according to the equities) do not control the issues in the case. Thus, the burden of the court's argument on both apportionment and tributary exclusion rested with congressional intent in enacting the Project Act. Justice Douglas was most critical of the court's opinion on the tributaries question and termed the majority opinion ". . . the baldest attempt by judges in modern times to spin their own philosophy into the fabric of the law, in derogation of the will of the Legislature." 4 According to Northcutt Ely, California's chief counsel in the case, the decision on tributaries" practically eliminates the long-range avail- ability of excess or surplus, which, on the water supply evidence, would have furnisbed a dependable supply of about 250,000 acre-feet to Cali- fornia if the tributaries had been included4' An examination of the water supply situation, had the court included the trib~taries, will show that it was on this key issue that California received its most serious setback from the suit. The following table 210 L.Ed. 2d 550, 551. 3 See also Ely & Wilbur, Hoover Dam Documents, 80th Congress, 2d Sess., House Document 717. . 10 L.Ed. 2d 581. 'a Ely, op. cit.~ at 3.