OCR Text |
Show 154 apparent that water from Lake Mead would be utilized for a great variety of purposes in three different states, as well as on United States projects and in satisfaction of United States treaty obligations. A great many conflicting interests, as between different sovereigns and competing uses, would have to be resolved in order to operate the reservoir and dam. In this context, it is understandable that Congress designed the Project Act itself as the source of the authority and guiding standards necessary for the operation of the dam and reservoir, including the interstate division of the unappropriated water to be impounded by the dam, except only as the Act itself expressly provided otherwise. Congress obviously felt that once the water was within the custody and control of the United States, in default of interstate agreement, the duty would devolve upon the United States, and particularly the Secretary of the Interior, to provide for the allocation of the water. This conclusion is also supported by the legislative history of the Project Act. The congressional debates are almost unintelligible except on the premise that the legislators considered that they were providing, in the Project Act itself, the authority for the allocation of impounded water among the states. Thus Senator Pittman of Nevada carefully pointed out on the floor of the Senate that Section 4(a) of the Project Act provided the basis for an apportionment of the water stored in Lake Mead. See pages 176-177, infra. Section 4(a) authorized the three interested states themselves to enter into the compact therein defined for the division of this water. Alternatively, the states could, if they chose, formulate a different scheme of allocation subject to congressional approval. Section 8(b). But if the states would not agree to the one or the other, then Congress clearly intended that the limitation on California in Section 4(a) and the Secretary's water delivery contracts made pursuant to Section 5 would impose a federal apportionment on the states. |
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 |