OCR Text |
Show 14 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Basin. (The Court's holding was later modified by Section 301(b) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act which also provided California with a 4.4 maf priority over diversions for the Central Arizona Project.) The Court upheld the Master's finding that the Arizona-New Mexico dispute regarding Gila River waters be decided by equitable apportionment (since the Congressional statutory apportionment of mainstream water was not applicable thereto) and that the States compromise settlement be included in the Decree. The Court followed the "Winters Right Doctrine" that the United States, when it created the Indian Reservations along the Lower Colorado River, intended to reserve for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. It upheld the United States claims for the quantity of water necessary to irrigate all the practicably irrigable acreage on the five Reservations along the Lower Colorado River. This was about 905,496 acre-feet for 136,636 irrigable acres. The Court disagreed with the Special Master's decision to determine the disputed boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation and delayed a ruling until a dispute develops over title because of some future refusal by the Secretary to deliver water. The Court agreed with the Special Master that the principle underlying the reservation of water rights for Indian Reservations was equally applicable to other Federal establishments such as the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Lake Havasu and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges, and the Gila National Forest, and that sufficient water was reserved for the purposes for which these reservations were created. The United States cannot claim the entitlement to the use without charge against its consumption of any waters that would have been wasted but for salvage by the Government on its wildlife refuges, because of the Project Act's command that consumptive use from the mainstream be measured by diversions less returns to the river. Finally, the Court agreed with the Special Master that all uses of mainstream water within a State are to be charged against that State's apportionment and that included uses by the United States. The Special Master's Report is elaborated on in Chapter VIII and the Supreme Court Opinion in Chapter IX. J. The Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California An analysis of the Report of the Special Master in Arizona v. California, dated December 5, 1960, and of the Supreme Court's Opinion dated June 3, 1963, 373 U.S. 546, appears in Chapters VIII and IX, respectively. The Supreme Court Decree dated March 9, 1964, 376 U.S. 340, confirms Arizona's right to 2.8 maf/yr when there was sufficient mainstream water available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy 7.5 maf/yr of consumptive use in the three Lower Basin States. The Decree apportioned 4.4 maf/yr thereof for use in California and 300,000 acre-feet annually was apportioned for use in Nevada (Article II(B)(1)). The Decree defines "consumptive use" as "...diversions from the stream less such return flow thereto as is available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican treaty obligation" (Article I(A)). The Decree also defined a "Perfected right" (Article I(G)) and "Present perfected rights" (Article I(H)) as a water right acquired in accordance with State law and existing as of June 25, 1929 (the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project Act), which has been exercised by the actual diversion of water that has been applied to a defined area of land or to defined municipal or industrial works and including rights reserved for Federal establishments. Article II (A) enjoins the United States and its officers from releasing water other than in accordance with the following order of priority: (1) For river regulation, improvement of navigation and flood control; (2) For irrigation and domestic uses, including the satisfaction of present perfected rights; and (3) For power. Provided, however, that the United States may release water for Mexico without regard to the aforesaid priorities. Note that the above order of priorities follows the provisions of Section 6 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. |