OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 583 been wasted but for salvage by the Government on its wildlife pre- serves. Whatever the intrinsic merits of this claim, it is inconsistent with the Act's command that consumptive use shall be measured by diversions less returns to the river. Finally, we note our agreement with the Master that all uses of mainstream water within a State are to be charged against that State's apportionment, which of course includes uses by the United States. VI. Decree While we have in the main agreed with the Master, there are some places we have disagreed and some questions on which we have not ruled. Rather than adopt the Master's decree with amendments or ap- pend our own decree to this opinion, we will allow the parties, or any of them, if they wish, to submit before September 16,1963, the form of decree to carry this opinion into effect, failing which the Court will prepare and enter an appropriate decree at the next Term of Court. It is so ordered. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Harlan, whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Stewart join, dissenting in part. I dissent from so much of the Court's opinion as holds that the Secre- tary of the Interior has been given authority by Congress to apportion, among and within the States of California, Arizona, and Nevada, the waters of the mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee Ferry. J also dissent from the holding that in times of shortage the Secretary has discretion to select or devise any "reasonable method" he wishes for determining which users within these States are to bear the burden of that shortage. (In all other respects Mr. Justice Stewart and I- but not Mr. Justice Douglas-agree with and join in the Court's opinion, though not without some misgivings regarding the amounts of water allocated to the Indian Reservations.) In my view, it is the equitable principles established by the Court in interstate water-rights cases, as modified by the Colorado River Compact and the California limitation, that were intended by Congress to govern the apportionment of mainstream waters among the Lower Basin States, whether in surplus or in shortage. A fortiori, state law was intended to control apportionment among users within a single State. I. Introduction The Court's conclusions respecting the Secretary's apportionment powers, particularly those in times of shortage, result in a single ap- pointed federal official being vested with absolute control, unrestrained by adequate standards, over the fate of a substantial segment of the life and economy of three States. Such restraint upon his actions as may follow from judicial review are, as will be shown, at best illusory. |