Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JJ2J48 <br /> <br />ARIZONA V. CALIFDRNIA AND ~.A(jll!'lU :SOUTHWEST WATER PROBLEMS 51 <br /> <br />his decision in part upon what was really intended as an equitable <br />method by Oongress in 1929 when dividing the waters of the river in <br />passing the Boulder Oanyon Project Act. It appears that Secretary <br />Udall has agreed with the court and has concluded that the principle <br />of equitable apportionment was not intended by Oongress in 1929. <br />As the Secretary told the Senate Oommittee on Interior and Insular <br />Affairs: <br /> <br />I have, as I say, Senator, the terrible and heavy burden of <br />dealing with a shortage problem, unless Oongress decides to get <br />into that field. If there is one cardinal principle that I see-and <br />I have discussed it with everybody in my department-that must <br />apply and that has to apply, it is that these states within the terms <br />of the contract that they signed with one another have to be on <br />equal footing. <br />I do not think Oongress in any past project in this whole 0010- <br />rado River Basin has given one state or one irrigation district the <br />priority position over any other state. I see no equitable or legal <br />or reasonable prineiple under which you can.14 <br /> <br />As is discussed in Ohapter V, this committee recommends the prin- <br />eiple of priority of appropriation and a 4.4 million acre-foot priority <br />to Oalifornia. In any event, if proration were to be used, it must be <br />based on the formula suggested by Mr. Ely whieh, in turn, is based on <br />the projeet act. <br /> <br />14 Hearings on S. 1658, Part I, op. oit.~ at 354-355 (emphasis added). <br />