OCR Text |
Show 153 trary, the Act clearly contemplates that water unappropriated as of that date is to be made available for use within a state only if the Secretary, within his discretion, contracts for the delivery of the water to that state. In short, no contract, no water, and the Secretary determines how much water he will contract to deliver to each state subject only to the limitations on his discretion expressed in the Project Act itself. Since Congress realized that the dam authorized by the Project Act would impound substantially all the water of the mainstream,21 Congress legislated that the Project Act was to be the new source of power for the allocation of water so impounded. In Sections 8(b) and 4(a), Congress provided that the water could be divided by compact among the interested states. But failing such a compact, the water need not run to the sea nor be indefinitely stored in Lake Mead; in such event the water was to be divided by the Secretary of the Interior. This conclusion, that the allocation of unappropriated water impounded in Lake Mead is governed by the Secretary's water delivery contracts, comports with the basic scheme established by Congress in the Project Act. It was date. See Cabunac v. National Terminals Corp., 139 F. 2d 853 (7th Cir. 1944); Zimmerman v. United States, 277 Fed. 965 (7th Civ. 1921). Under the terms of the Act, it became effective only when the conditions of Section 4 (a) were satisfied and the President so proclaimed. The Presidential Proclamation was made on June 25, 1929. It has been suggested that "present perfected rights" should be construed to mean rights perfected as of the date the Compact was signed, namely, November 22, 1922. This argument must be rejected. A compact, like a statute, speaks as of its effective date. The Colorado River Compact became effective only upon congressional consent thereto, and such consent was given in the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Thus, the Compact became effective when the Act took effect, which, as noted, was June 25, 1929. 21See Hearings on H. R. 9826 Before the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 163-164 (1926); Legislative History of Sections 4(a), 5 (1st Paragraph), and 8, Boulder Canyon Project Act as compiled by the State of Arizona [hereinafter cited as "Ariz. Legis. Hist."] p. 6. |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California |