WSPC04582 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(l Ol b ~-S.. . . Stated in its simplest terms, therefore, the Supreme Court in arriving at its decision applied the terms of the Boulder Canyon Project Act above referred to, as did the Special Master. There was one significant departure, however, from the Master's decision. The Master held that in times of shortage that the shortage should be apfortioned, using a mathematical formula in proportion to each state s share of the allocated waters. The Supreme Court disagreed with this method of apportioning shortages on the basis that neither the project act nor the water contracts require the use of any par- ticular formula for apportioning such shortages. The Court reasoned that since the Boulder Canyon Project was constructed for other purposes in addition to irrigation, such as flood control, naviga- tion, regulation of flow, and generation of electrical energy, that the Secretary should not be tied to a rigid formula which would force him to distribute water for irrigation purposes only. Fol- lowing this line of reasoning the Court held that the Secretary of the Interior "is free to choose among the recognized methods of apportiorunent or to devise reasonable methods of his own". The entire essence of the Supreme Court's decision was to the effect that since the lower basin states had failed to agree among themselves as to a division of the Colorado River waters, then Congress, by the ~oulder Canyon Act, had done this for them. Of particular interest to the upper basin states is the fact that Arizona contended that the Colorado River Compact apportioned Ill! only the waters of the main stream, not the main stream and. the tributaries. In view of the express wording of the Colorado River Compact, this appears to be a ridiculous contention. The Supreme Court, however, contented itself on this point by stating: '~e need not reach that question, however, for we have concluded that whatever waters the Compact apportioned the Project Act itself dealt only with water of the main stream." There is nothin in the was s ea n on 0 t e waters 0 act, as a rea y quote , spea s apportioned to the lower basin the Colorado River Compact." of the Colorado River Compact, act, reads as follows: "There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River ;stem in perpetuity to the Upper Basin and to the Lower sin respectively the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include all water necessary for the supplf of any rights which may now exist." (Emphasis supplied). Article I1(a) of the Compact defines the Colorado River System as follows: -15-