|
<br />
<br />[Vol. '9: Page,
<br />
<br />isary to revise: it on October
<br />ies came back here on thret
<br />'menu with respect to the
<br />
<br />nce to apportion water
<br />fter to supervise the de-
<br />Ues has been a judicial
<br />ate. The dismissal of a
<br />allowing the upstream
<br />IS River litigation, Kan,
<br />lo's ever-increasing up.
<br />
<br />'e the effect of confirm.
<br />certainty of title nece$.
<br />J safeguard, so far as it
<br />: will not adjudicate an
<br />uses in one state cause
<br />I in another state. Yet
<br />'0 take the position that
<br />ated water supply, no
<br />stymie timely develop.
<br />Innot presently use the
<br />1inancing for an eco-
<br />"d supply of water-its
<br />. no pres~nt Uharm" to
<br />.e shown.
<br />not equipped to deal
<br />dence in equirable ap.
<br />between asserting the
<br />nterstate and insisting
<br />) be understood by the
<br />.s whether the division
<br />the technical evidence
<br />reservoir evaporation
<br />at which it returns to
<br />e points requires the
<br />Jurts tends to restrain
<br />r the Supreme Court
<br />>ert assistance from a
<br />
<br />ido, 206 U.s. 46 (J907).
<br />
<br />THE COLORADO RIVER
<br />
<br />5'
<br />
<br />!,'o,TJTI ber '9(.(. ]
<br />
<br />echnician although dozens of highly trained engineers, geologists,
<br />".~t" t , . db' d h d d f xh'b'
<br />" h.d locoists testified ill the case an su mJtte un re s 0 e ] Its,
<br />.nu } ro '" d k' th . m
<br />f which appeared to represent advance wor ill e sCIence.
<br />""m-!n~ claim that the Court is institutionally unfit to divide water inter-
<br />" does IS not, of course, prove that Congress is fit. But the weaknesses of the
<br />Sf;Itt' C' d d'
<br />Court are tlie strengths of Congress.. ~ngress.l~ no~ eXfec~e to procee ill
<br />_ dance with substantive norms; It ]S a pohtlcalillstltutlOn and can take
<br />...cor d I" I f th d' .
<br />nt of the economic an po !Uca power 0 e conten 109 states In
<br />~C'('Ohuin" a division. Yet it cannot ride roughshod over the weaker states,
<br />rr2C " 'd d d .
<br />{or in the United States Senate a state s.power DeS ~ot epen on I,ts popu-
<br />btion or economic strength. CongressIOnal apporuonment, then, IS partly
<br />mpact and partly compulsion. The states' congressional delegations can
<br />:Iluence the settlement more than Supreme Court litigants can, but they
<br />annot block settlement as a compacting party can. The existence of a con-
<br />f;TTSSional power of apportionment may facilitate the settlement of inter-
<br />fralC water disputes. The water officials and governor of the state can reach
<br />an .grccment with their counterparts in .nother state in private negotia-
<br />tions, ha,'e the settlement effectuated by Congress, and both sides avoid the
<br />t>bme for the less favorable parts of the settlement that are inevitable in a
<br />compromise. The availability of congre;sional apportionment may tend
<br />to r.ise the number of interstate settlements because congressional appor-
<br />tionment does not need the consent of the Attorney General, as many
<br />interstate litigations do.'" Congressional apportionment should also be
<br />c1lcaper: in Arizolla tI. Califo",ia the compensation for the Special Master
<br />alone amounted to 185,000 dollars.'''
<br />In addition to being an institution whose structure, functions, and tra-
<br />ditions are more adapted to the task of dividing water among states, Con-
<br />~"'s has available to it the staff assistance necessary to make comprehen-
<br />,ible tllC technical evidence supplied by the parties. Moreover, Congress is
<br />110t limited to a record made by the parties; it can gather its own evidence
<br />from the files of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and
<br />lhe U.S. Geological Survey, and it can order studies to be made by these
<br />:Igencies or by congressional staff personnel. Congress thus has the capa-
<br />hility of being better informed about the nature of the problem than the
<br />Court.
<br />
<br />,
<br />I
<br />l
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />i
<br />
<br />205. Su.. eo"., R~portec'~ ,!ransc:ript, "01. 126, at 21415-80, Arizona Y. California. 373 U.s. 546
<br />hpGJ) (tesumony and exhibits of Dr. Luna B. Leopold, then Chid Hydraulic EDBincu of the
<br />t..'alLnJ Slates Gcologic:al Survey).
<br />206. St't'. ^.rizona Y; California, 298 U.S. 558, ,68 (1936).
<br />2C?,. Thu LS,exclU51ve of exp~d. The fim Special Maner. George I. Haight, di~ in 1955 .after
<br />prt"PI.rmg . pretrial oeda and an !>pinioD on .a j.oinder queniao. Hu ~tate reCeivro comIKnsation of
<br />IJs.ooo. 35l U.s. 977 (1956). SunOD H. Riflund lucceeded as Special Mastel, tried the c:a~ and
<br />"'.~rcd the .repon. He was engaged in the manB from time to time from J956 to 1960. He re-
<br />CI'...cd Sl50,ooo. 354 U.S. 918 (1957); 357 U.S. 902 (J958); 377 U.S. 921 (1964).
<br />
|