OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 603 mittee for quite a period of time. The contentions made by the Senators from Arizona have not been conclusive to my mind. For instance, I will refer to the fact that Arizona desires to eliminate entirely all waters arising in the watershed and flowing out of the Gila River. "Mr. Hayden. There is nothing of that kind in the Senator's amendment. "Mr. Phipps. There is nothing of that kind in the Senator's amendment, but that has been one of the arguments advanced by California as being an offset to the amount to which Arizona would try to limit California. "Mr. Hayden. If the Senator thought there was force in that argument, I should think that he would have included in his amendment a provision eliminating the waters of the Gila Kiver and its tributaries, as my amendment does. "Mr. Phipps. I do not consider it necessary because the bill it- self, not only the present substitute measure but every other bill on the subject, ties this question up loith the Colorado River compact. "Mr. Hayden. My amendment does that. "Mr. Phipps. Yes; that is true, but under estimates of engi- neers-one I happen to recall being made, I think, by Mr. La Rue-notwithstanding all of the purposes to which water of the Gila may be put by the State of Arizona, at least 1,000,000' acre- feet will return to the main stream. Yet Arizona contends that that water is not available to California; whereas to-day and for years past at least some of the waters from the Gila River have come into the canal which is now supplying the Imperial Valley. "It is not a definite fixed fact that with the enactment of this proposed legislation the all-American canal is going to be built within the period of seven years; as a matter of fact, it may not be built at all; we do not know as to that. But I do not think that the water from the Gila River, one of the main tributaries of the Colorado, should be eliminated from consideration. I think that California is entitled to have that counted in as being a part of the basic supply of water.'1'1 (Italics added.) It is plain from this colloquy that Senator Phipps thought that his amendment, limiting the amount California can claim, "ties this ques- tion up with the Colorado River Compact" and that the Gila River (below Lake Mead) should be "counted in as being a part of the basic supply of water" which California is entitled to have included in the computations for the Lower Basin States. The word of Senator Phipps, who was chairman of the committee and who offered the amendment, is to be taken as against those in opposition or those who might be making legislative history to serve their ends. Schwegmann Bros. v. Cdivert Corp., supra, pp. 394-395: "The fears and doubts of the opposition are no authoritative guide to the construction of legislation. It is the sponsors that we look to when the meaning of the statutory words is in doubt." If California were restricted by the Project Act to the use of 4,400,000 acre-feet out of the mainstream, it is difficult to believe that Senator Ashhurst of Arizona would have expressed his bitter minority |