Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />[Vol. '9: Page, <br /> <br />blic welIare, Con- <br />'s of the Colorado <br />:es-Arizona, Cali_ <br />y; it can be stated <br />,ussion.) This Con_ <br />, stream is a third <br />(formerly thought <br />'e Supreme COUrt. <br />e Boulder Canyon <br />1d partly by dele, <br />: river. This statu, <br />!Dent. Neither the <br />apportionment as <br />)ortionment since <br />and the equitable <br />11 apportionment <br />'ream of the Colc> <br />tributaries_ <br />'ollows: <br />, consumptive use <br />e-halI of surplus. <br />tion preced en t to <br />"'1 legislation, did <br /> <br />ority to divide the <br />Kt, subject to the <br /> <br />'livery of water to <br /> <br />:ive use plus one- <br />wna-2.8 million <br />,bject to physical <br />n the future con- <br />-300,000 acre-feet <br />ith the Secretary <br /> <br />. T,<:'wer Basin to <br /> <br />:s a shortage of <br />mot be satisfied <br />ato..:r as Thngtess <br /> <br />THE COLORADO RiVER <br /> <br />45 <br /> <br />~.-n'h<r ,#1 <br /> <br />. . the exercise of his discretion. Among the methods of aUo- <br />11'''' dl1'('Ct or JIl ., th b . f th <br />:. th -~ Sccrernry is free to adopt arc proratlOmng on e aslS 0 e <br />~lIon at we . . 8/ A . / N d) <br />. '~C!S (44/75 to Califorrua, 2 75 to nzona, 3 75 to eva a , <br />0:.:<> conu ~ th b] d f II . <br />. in' of appropriation, or some 0 er reason a e mo e 0 a ocabon. <br />mar.. b' virtue of section 6 of the act, the Secretary, under whatever <br />J!"wtO'er, l . f .. f d' h ""p <br />d ted must first sabs y present per ecte rIg!s. resent per- <br />"T.rm a or ' I' d b fi' I th <br />. _ I ' h~" arc defined as water actually app Ie to ene cta use on e <br />(n"!'" n!: u , <br />Ii ',dale 6f the act, June 25,1929. However, 10 no event can the Secre- <br />r In"!J\ e f C Iii' . f <br />~". all0C3le more than 4.4 million acre, eet to a orma to sabs y present <br /> <br />rnir<lnl rights. <br />(5) Federal law controls both inlerstate and intrastate distribution of <br /> <br />.'31~.) lnclian resen'ations and other federal e:tablishments are entit~ed <br />I" u>c water in the amount necessary to accomplish th~ purposes for whIch <br />Ihe\, were crealed, with priority date an,d perfected-nght status as of the <br />lIme the establishment was created by WIthdrawal of the land from entry. <br />1',r dr<ree establishes the priority dates and the quantities of water for <br />tIlC>C establishments. <br />TI,ere were three dissents from the decision. Justices Har]an and Stewarr <br />3j:rrrd with the majority on the .interpretation of section 4( a) of the Project <br />ACl-1O wit, that the water subject to the act was mam,stream water only <br />and Ulat California had, therefore, limited herself to 4.4 million acre-feet <br />of consumptive use of main-stream water plus not more than one-halI of <br />lurplus. TIley also apparently agreed that "surplus" should be defined as <br />waler available to supply consumptive uses in excess of 7.5 million acre- <br />(cet.'" Thus, the Court voted seven,tO-one to reject California's accounting <br />Il'slem. which would have charged Arizona for Gila River uses and thus <br />would have increased the main-stream surplus available to CaliIornia in <br />lI,e ~mount of one-halI of Arizona's Gila uses-about I million acre-feet <br />more ~ year. Justices Harlan and Stewart disagreed with the majority OVer <br />Ihe interpretation and effect of section 5 of the ac!.'" They contended that <br />Ihe Project Act did not establish a statutory scheme of apportionment <br />tllrough which the Secretary of the Interior could by exercising his contract <br />'....wer allocate the water-subject, of course, to the California Limitation <br />Act. Instead, they read the Project Act as doing no more than establishing <br />a ceiling on California's appropriations. Subject to that ceiling, the water <br />"C !lie river was to be divided by the usual means: either equitable appor- <br />lionment in a lawsuit or a compact among the states. It follows from this <br />conclusion that the Secretary would have no authority to determine the <br />allocation of water in periods of shortage. The rights of the states to water <br /> <br />.16. $<< 373 U.S. 546,603 (1963)' <br />I!,.. It/. at 603-Q-i. <br />