OCR Text |
Show 160 so acquired, unless it be by preventing an adequate quantity of water from flowing in the river at any necessary point of diversion." Beyond this the Court considered it unnecessary to go. The Court thus decided not to deal with the question, which must be answered in this litigation, of the extent of the Secretary's authority under the Project Act to control the allocation of water among the states. The fact that this and other questions are ripe for decision now, although they were not in 1931 when Arizona v. California was decided, gives some indication of the vast difference between the two cases. The prior case was decided before Hoover Dam was built and the sole issue was whether construction of the dam should be enjoined. The present case, of course, necessarily involves an adjudication of the claims and interests of the several states and the United States as they have developed during some twenty-five years of operation of Hoover Dam. For example, one of Arizona's primary fears in 1931 was that she would be required to conform to the Colorado River Compact in order to receive stored water; but she has since ratified the Compact, and, indeed, has relied on that ratification in this litigation. In short, Arizona v. California was concerned with different issues and different circumstances from those presented in this case. The argument has been advanced that the Project Act, as I would construe it, constitutes an unconstitutional assumption of power by the United States. The argument does not survive scrutiny. Clearly the United States may construct a dam and impound the waters of the Colorado River, a navigable stream. Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423 (1931); see United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U. S. 222 (1956); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53 (1913); United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690 (1899). Clearly, also, once the United States impounds the water and thereby obtains |
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 |