WSP00250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Vol. ]9: Pag., ,ower permi13 ish and that a .ili. . m unmedi. Alliance ... . , 111 listance, tran~ the Columbia imited to bar. I and Arizo~ nd is likely to :e to expon ib i:lterregional ~ concomitant lent plan. s to apportion 'irs!, state ofli, ~nt can avoid It by blaming ; can take tht To dilute tht ,vernment In lent may be a 'eat of which availability 01 . control than , reduced. wish to bring a state legis. '0 express tht isapproval by e of bringing ; an interstatt e gains from j against tht ng the gains has occurred (water resoUTCCl moo-ging portiom lacifie Basin, alld 5tributing the tJ. .er.dd1ci~Dl areas 3Drities to c=nsurr Jrts of this )on," ~e Rocky .Moun' THE COLORADO RIVER 53 ~.~lcrJ#] . "Ii ant number of cases, that this state of affairs is likely to continue If\. SIj:1lfu' C and that a disappointed state is likely to turn to a body with ~~ ~ . , .ti,'e power, the Supreme Court or now the Congress. AlIocatmg to d"r<)SJ the power to apportion stream systems among state.. is thought ~~ d,'antages because Congress has the capacity to make quicker, to ~\.~nfaormed decisions, which can be coordinated with federal plans for brftrrl b th d .. ki th Jcn-Iopment of a basin, and ecause e, eclSlo~.ma ng pr?ces~ ~t I:ro- d...-c-s an apportionment is more compatible WIth a legislative mstltutlon tl,~n with a judicial institution. :. E:m-cis~ 0/ tM pow~r. While it has been questioned elsewhere, no Justice of the Supreme O>un disputed the power of Congress to apportion the lower Colorado Ri,'er among Arizona, California, and Nevada. The dissent by Justices I brbn, Slewart, and Douglas was from the Court's holding that Congress inlenlkd to exercise this power. The legislative history was elaborately luml both in the MOJt~r's R~port and in the Supreme Court opinion, and nl~hing much is gained by going over the same ground again. Looking at ,he kgisbtive materials, especially the Senate debate, through a telescope, onr might question whether in ]928 Congress would really have delegated ,.. thr Sccrctary of th~ Interior the power to divide the Colorado River. But the struggle to reach a compromise had been a long one, and the debate is .lu.hhl with both implicit assumptions and express statements that Con- g"5.' had broken tlle stalemate by dividing the river itself. And the Secre- WI'S role is in actuality a small one. When Congress required a limit on c,lifurnia of 4.4 million acre-feet the apportionment was complete for prac- t"alpurposes. Congress knew that California would be the first to use the nrw supply of water from Hoover Dam'" and that she would very early prr.. against the ceiling. In fact, before the dam was completed in 1935, C,lifornia had water delivery contracts of 5.362 million acre-feet. With 4.4 ",illi..n acre-feet apportioned in practical effect to California in the Project ACI, iltakes no leap of faith to believe that Congress left to the Secretary the '1'lxJIlionment of the remainder between Arizona and Nevada. A second point in the Harlan dissent is more persuasive-,the denial that Congress intended to delegate to the Secretary the power to handle short- .gn :IS he saw fit. The Master, with no statutory foundation, decreed that aIlUrlages should be prorated in proportion to each state's share of the main "ream. Thus, if the available supply in a given year was only 6 million aa~,feet California would take 44/75, Arizona 28/75, and Nevada 3175. TIm result was attributed to something called the "principle of sovereign :110. The' Boulder Canyon Proje:a Act included an authorization for the All-American Callal to ....W'C'lhc- Impc:ri.al Valle:y. 43 V.S.C. i 617i (196<4).