WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002043 46 ASSEMBLY INTEIUM COMMITTEE ON WATER I T.!he effect of the masteT's recommendation is shown in the following table" : TABLE IX MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION (Based upon mainstream use only and assuming a longtime depend~ble supply of 6.0 million acre~feet a year and maximum Upper Basin development) Total acre-feet per year 6,000,000 6,000,000 Estimatt.\d mainstream supply (Lower Basin)_____________________ cal~:::liX': :~:;: ~e ------ ~-- -------- -- -----~- "-- -- --- -..- --- -- - - -- Since sb\ortage exists, based upon 4%5 formula ____________________ Present C~\liforna use (consumptive use) _________________________ 3,500,000 5,362,000 (1,862,000) Total Ca.lifornia reduction ___________________________________ , Arizona's Sh;are: Since shor\age exists, based upon 2%-5 formula ___________~_~___ Present Arh~ona use (Diversions less return flows) ____~________~ Available f~or Central Arizona Project ____~___________________ 2,240,000 1,300,000 940,000 In this ca se, however, the Central Arizona Project would be reduced and its remaining supply would come at the cxpense of California. The master's recd'mmendation would have left no water for the Metropoli- tan Water Di[strict in a shortage period of this magnitude. The court r;~jeeted, unanimously, the master's formula, which was the most damag:ing feature of the master's report for California. In re- jecting it, the co urt appears to have reduced the adverse impact which would have resulted if the court had adopted the formula, but the 'court divided over the choice of a replacement one. A formula which re- spected priorities in the tradition of the western water law "first in time, first in right" (,loctrine was supported by Justices Douglas, Harlan and Stewart. They a'\dvocated a formula with interstate priorities con- trolling. This would \ have protected existing uses in California and Arizona against new projects such as the proposed Central Arizona Project. The future p,rojects would thus bear the risk of shortage. The majority left the apPlortionment to the secretary and did not accept the master's formula. ., The majority held t\'1at the Project Act had vested the Secretary of the Interior with the lJluthority to devise a shortage formula which might be based upon eitlher proration,' or priority, or other factors. The secretary has never ann'punced such a formula. The court pointed out that the Congress has thl, authority to restrict or enlarge the secretary's powers in this respect. 't'.he responsibility immediately rests with the secretary but, as the court points out, ultimately rests with Congress. Former Attorney Genera} Stanley Mosk has commented: "If California loses allY part of that 4.4 million acre-feet, it will uot he the result of the Supreme Court decision. It will be the re- sult of action hereafter to be taken by the Secretary of the Interior or by Congress. I am Slue that neither the secretary nor the Con- gress will ever take that, action if our people understand what is involved." 9 II Mosk, op. cU., at 5.