|
<br />'f;":~,:*~ ?:~b:j.~:_::'" '~~:~..>-;' \: ~.::~z"<:~,, i.
<br />
<br />
<br />40
<br />
<br />STANFORD LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. '9: Page 1
<br />
<br />Act unconstitutional. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on the
<br />plaintiff's bill of complaint and defendants' motions to dismiss. Holding
<br />that the Boulder Canyon Project Act was a valid exercise of congressional
<br />power under the commerce clause, the Court dismissed the bill without
<br />prejudice to a later suit for relief if the dam should be operated so as to inter-
<br />fere with Arizona's rights. Apart from its significance to the parties, the case
<br />has a general importance since the Supreme Court, for the first time, upheld
<br />congressional power under the commerce clause to authorize construction
<br />of multipurpose dams on navigable streams.''' While the Court preserved
<br />the fiction that a navigation purpose would be served, it recognized that
<br />other purposes not authorized by the navigation power would also be
<br />served, primarily the generation and sale of electric power. On this foun.
<br />dation rest many mighty dams that dry up the stream below, thus destroy-
<br />ing navigability entirely, if indeed any ever existed.
<br />In its second suit'" Arizona changed tactics. Conceding that there was
<br />as yet no interference with her water rights (Hoover Dam was under con-
<br />struction but had yet to be closed in), Arizona alleged that such in terference
<br />was threatened in the future. In order to prepare for the lawsuit to come,
<br />she sought to commence an action to perpetuate testimony relating to ber
<br />interpretation of the Project Act and the compact. In essence, Arizona relied
<br />upon the act and compact and desired to obtain and record testimony favor-
<br />able to her construction of each-namely, that the article III (b) water was
<br />intended to belong exclusively to Arizona. This bill was dismissed, one
<br />ground being that the testimony sought to be preserved would be inadmis-
<br />sible as evidence of the meaning of the compact and the act.
<br />After this rebuff events moved rapidly. In 1934 work began on Parker
<br />Dam, the diversion point for the Colorado River Aqueduct. (The aqueduct
<br />was designed to carry about 1.3 million acre-feet of water per year to the
<br />southern California coastal plain.) Claiming that construction of the dam,
<br />which had one foot on Arizona soil, was unauthorized, Arizona's governor
<br />sent troops to baIt the work.'" The United States sued for an injunction in
<br />the Supreme Court, but lost when the Court determined that Congress had
<br />not authorized the dam.''' Within months after the decision Congress
<br />specifically authorized the dam, m and Arizona withdrew her troops.
<br />In November of 1935 Arizona filed suit for a general equitable appor-
<br />tionment of the unappropriated water in the river.''' Tbe United States had
<br />not consented to be sued and was not a party. The Court di~missed the com-
<br />
<br />170. See Morreale, F~dend Power in WesUrn Watrrs: The Nlllligll1ion Powrr and the Rule ot
<br />No CompenslZlion. 3 NATUltAL RESOURCES J. 1. 10-11 (1963).
<br />17J. Arizona 'I. California, .:192 U.S. 341 (1934).
<br />172. MANIi, op. t:it.supriZ Dote 164. at 85-86.
<br />J73. United States Y. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174 (1935).
<br />174. Act of Aug. 3D, 1935.49 SUt. 1039.
<br />175. Arizona 'Y. California, ::198 U.S. 558 (1936).
<br />
<br />!'Io,'ember 1966]
<br />
<br />plaint without n
<br />St~tes was indisp'
<br />Upon the renc
<br />She could secure 1
<br />sued. She had not:
<br />for delivery of wa:
<br />h~nd, had contrac:
<br />to satisfy 5.362 mi'
<br />",os going forwar,
<br />mJkc full use of tl
<br />For nearly ten :-
<br />scnsion over the f'
<br />central Arizona sr
<br />c!Teet that compaCl
<br />:tOnJ did what she,
<br />tr2ct for the delive'
<br />acre-feet of consun,
<br />Unfornmately f
<br />of w~ter are two V(
<br />in \'~in to obtain f(
<br />ur)' to bring water
<br />was fought by Calif
<br />of the Central Ari:,
<br />lJ.orize the project
<br />j:rcsscs, and, while, I
<br />Dlifornia was imn
<br />The endless squ
<br />from other states. F,
<br />illgness to consider
<br />involvcd were in di,
<br />th,! consideration 0
<br />time ~s use of the w.
<br />c,lcd or a binding a1
<br />b)' tlle States of tlle I
<br />For tllirty years:
<br />n'itlence exists of a '
<br />
<br />'76. MGSI"'J R~p'o,t ~
<br />17'. 1tI. at 33.35.36-
<br />171l. MANN, op. nt. SUI
<br />179. The: Arizona con
<br />1'441. III ctJ~ti\'eneu ......as
<br />la dw- c.o\l.n(, uu: Arizon;
<br />1'44. Ariz. UWS 1944. ch.
<br />.10. liar,"', R~po" t
<br />
<br />" , '" " ..., ',. ..', ,.,..",;f~ """""~~"'''~>e'
<br />.. --. . -~~ ---.- -.-.-.. ......-,..............- J__...~.....c-.-lo........~IA.~~-!.~~_':..J...Xl.+I'A....L "..,.~/....~...-!o'.st;'f1fx..y. r:tC-j,j ..~.~i:~
<br />.i*~~ji..~~ '..:~.;.i' >:;,.~; .:i." :'>~:., .' , .~-..;' .' \", ,::j..." ,'~::,;,J.:.:,.;:}}\~'>;ti~r:[:'(~: ,:tnt~\~
<br />. T ')-.. "--'~' - :..1fi?.i..s:-:].~'1-::q--r ;...:>.e-i..~~,~;-.:JD .t';;::-;(" .';':,. -....' -.:.::.". -. ",,!..tYo1 .t.~-\1',""'-:~;' "_"--~""""l~~J~ X .~.
<br />. , ~":..~"",~--",,_':,:..,.""~'.J'......:'i&->>'..c:,.~.....~K~.;c.::t..'.oc.:.~-~-;:-:'....:J_'t.:.. .~ . - ':.,... ~ ..~- . ';-. ..
<br />
|