| OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER VIII 129 the two States, such as the interpretation, operative effect and validity of several sections of the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the water delivery contract between the United States and Arizona. At issue also is the effectiveness of Arizona's purported ratification of the Compact and the applicability of principles such as priority of appropriation and equitable apportionment. Nevada took a third approach. She did not regard the Project Act or the water delivery contracts made by the Secretary of the Interior as controlling rights to water but viewed the litigation as a traditional suit for an equitable apportionment, in which she claimed the right to approximately 500,000 acre-feet of water based on needs projected to the year 2000. C.I.2 Tributary; Water A second major controversy involved claims to tributary water by the States in which diversions from the tributaries occur. The important tributaries involved in this controversy were: (1) The Gila River System, over which New Mexico and Arizona are in conflict; (2) The Little Colorado River System, contested by the same two States; and (3) The Virgin River System, the waters of which are claimed by Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. C.I.3 Claims of United States The United States asserted claims as against all of the States. The United States claimed power to regulate and control the use of Colorado River water pursuant to the Project Act and by reason of its ownership and control of Hoover Dam and the mainstream works below. The United States also claimed that it has reserved the use of water for the benefit of some 25 Indian Reservations and dozens of other Federal establishments located throughout the 132,000 square miles of the Lower Basin. C.2 Prior Colorado River Litigation The Special Master noted that the subject litigation is the fifth inter-State suit affecting the Colorado River, although it is the first in which evidence has been taken. The four prior suits were: (1) On October 13, 1930, Arizona sued the Secretary of the Interior and six other Basin States to enjoin construction of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal, to enjoin performance of contracts for delivery of stored water, and in addition, sought to have the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the Colorado River Compact declared unconstitutional. The Court, per Mr. Justice Brandeis, held inter alia, that the Compact and the Project Act were constitutional, that the River is a navigable stream, and that the Secretary of the Interior could construct Hoover Dam authorized by Section 1 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The Arizona bill was dismissed {Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931)). (2) On February 14, 1934, Arizona moved for leave to file a bill to perpetuate the testimony of the negotiators of the Colorado River Compact. The parties named were the other six States of the Colorado River Basin, the California public agencies which are defendants in the present action, and the Secretary of the Interior. A unanimous Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandeis, denied the application {Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (1934)). An alternate ground for the decision was the incompetence of the evidence sought to be perpetuated. * (3) On January 14, 1935, the United States sued to enjoin Arizona's interference with construction of Parker Dam, which included Arizona's threat to use military force to prevent construction. The Court, per Mr. Justice Butler, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there was no showing that the Secretary was authorized to construct the Dam {United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174 (1935)). Subsequently, Congress, by Act of August 30, 1935, specifically authorized erection of Parker Dam for the purpose, inter alia, of improving navigation (49 Stat. 1039). (4) In November 1935, Arizona filed a petition for leave to file a bill of complaint against California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming praying for a judicial apportionment of the unappropriated water of the Colorado River. The Court, per Mr. Justice Stone, denied the petition on the ground that the United States was an indispensable party. Specifically left undecided was the question |
