Laserfiche WebLink
<br />21-13 <br /> <br />LAW OF THE COLORADO RIVER <br /> <br />~ 21.02[6] <br /> <br />ter to be counted against the apportionment of the state in <br />which each reservation is situated. <br /> <br />By excluding the tributaries from the allocation; the Court <br />instantaneously vaporized most, if not all, of the "surplus" <br />water above the Article III(a) 7.5 m.a.f. apportionment-Qf <br />which California would be entitled to a half share. The Court <br />itself estimated that this particular determination cost Cali- <br />fornia 1.0 m.a.f. and benefitted Arizona by the same amount. 35 <br />The'decision also shifted much more of the Lower Basin's <br />Mexican Treaty obligation to California than otherwise <br />would have occurred. <br /> <br />Arizona v. California has attracted extensive commentary, <br />much of it critical.36 Besides vindicating Arizona,37 it ex- <br />panded federal control over interstate water rights at the ex- <br />pense of state authority and diminished the potency of inter- <br />state compacts. Despite express disclaimers of any intent to <br />affect issues between the Upper and Lower Basins, the deci- <br />sion's disregard of Arizona's and Nevada's tributaries in de- <br />termining how to divide the waters of the "Colorado River <br />System" has aggravated, if not generated, the current con- <br />troversy over the Upper Basin's Mexican Treaty obliga- <br />tions.38 The Upper Basin is dismayed and the Lower Basin <br />delighted by the notion that, if the Lower Basin's tributaries <br />can be discounted so effortlessly by the Supreme Court for <br />Lower Basin apportionment purposes, the Court might with <br /> <br />35 ld. at 567-68. <br /> <br />36 See, e.g., Hundley, "Clio Nods: Arizona v, California and the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act--A Reassessment." 3 West. Hi$t. Quart. 17 (1972); Meyers, "The Colo- <br />rado River," 19 Stan L. Rev. 1 (1966); Trelease, "Arizona v. California: Allocation of <br />Water to People, States, and Nation," 1963 Sup. Ct. Rev. 158; Clyde, "The Colorado <br />River Decision-1963," 8 Utah L. Rev. 299 (1964); Haber, "Arizona v. California-A <br />Brief Review," 4 Nat. Resources J. 17 (1964); Wilmer, "Arizona v. California, A Stat- <br />utory Construction Case," 6 Ariz. L. Rev. 40 (1964); Sax. "Problems in Federalism in <br />Reclamation Law," 37 U. Colo. L. Rev. 49 (1964). <br /> <br />37 Under the circumstances, Arizona's victory would seem to.'exemplify a maxim <br />of the distinguished Colorado attorney and water law expert Raphael J. Moses. Mo- <br />ses' Second Law holds that regardless of the merits of any particular case. the liti- <br />gating lawyer has a 50 % chance of winning (or losing) it when he (or she) steps foot <br />in the courtroom. (Moses' First Law is the anti-gravitational one: "Water runs up- <br />hill to money. ") <br /> <br />38 See Hundley, supra note 9, at 313. <br />