WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 002342 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PROIlLEMS [5 waters in the Colorado River system in accordance with the ro- visions of the Colorado River Compact.7 Furthermore, Senator Frank E. Moss of Utah, also a member othe committee, stated: . I concu~ in the individual views of Se;'ator:oAnderiQll and len- ator Mechem of New Mexico. . . . It is well to underline theluty to account for all the waters to all with interest in the rive; and I would support positive language to accomplish this.' I' ende.vor,ed to retain the duty of the Secretary of Interior andhCommisi6Aer of Reclamation to account for all of the waters of 'the tolorado River System allptted, in accordance with',:the C?lora~6 Rjyer Compact. . . .8 . . Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of.California refused'{o sign"thedomriii'itee report and thus, a total of seven Senators of t!)~ 15,m,emfer El~,nate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs have,taken..issu\ with the court's decision on the exclusion of tributaries issue. CalifoJ~ia i~ not alone in being dissatisfied with the court's general'resrildn tlishJgard. 2. Specific Allocation or., .1. _" As was indicated above, the Project Act. auth'orized:<~ t,'ist~te com- pact among the Lower Basin states to apporti6'r\'lthe '/:5 Jnillio":i1 acre- fect allocated to that basin. This compact was nev~'r enfe:r'~C;1 into." There- fore, the court, in its opinion, con'curred five td',three' ~tith the master in a~~~::~~~~~~~~_o~_~~:_~_~~~~~~::: :~I~~~Ya:.r:J~: :~::~n~:n~;l~i::_: cess over 7.5 million . ~ VJ Arizona ---------------_________2:8 million acre-feet plu'~ one-half of ex- cess over 7.5 million ~ Nevada ---------------------___300,000 acre-feetf I The court held that Congress, in passing the Project Act, .inte'nded to and did create its own comprehensive scheme fot' thie apporti6iiment and the compact provisions did not control.s, .'.J' . : 3. Allocation of Shortages , ' . .,:.,i f I.' .:. . . The allocation of shortages among the states wa,s another major issue of the case. The special master devised a forn:{ula for allocation of shortag~ based ~Jlon ~llocations whereby statesl. would .be reduced III proportIOn to theIr entItlement as follows: ... C I.f . 4.1 bl a 1 orma --------------------________________ ~r. of water aval a e Arizona ---------------------------------_____~-~IU. a of water available N d . ./7~5 eva a -------------.- ------~_______________. ~.17!) of water available 7 Ibid.~ at 27. S Ibid., at 28. , J Sa 10 L.Ed 2d 556.