OCR Text |
Show 198 was intended to adopt this feature of the Hayden and Bratton amendments. Indeed, it was recognized by all of the Senators participating in the debates that the only major difference between the three amendments having relevance to this case was the amount of water to which California would be limited out of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet; the Hayden amendment limited California to 4,200,000, the Bratton amendment to 4,400,000, and the Phipps amendment to 4,600,000. Thus Senator Bratton observed that, other than the difference of 200,000 acre-feet, his amendment and Senator Phipps' were "quite similar."08 This is also made clear by the parliamentary maneuver in the Senate, carried out without opposition, substituting the Phipps amendment for the Hayden amendment in order to permit a vote on whether California should be limited to 4,200,000 acre-feet or 4,600,000 acre-feet.69 Senators Hayden and Phipps specifically agreed that there were only three substantive differences between their amendments : (1) the difference between 4,200,000 and 4,600,000 acre-feet; (2) a provision, unrelated to this litigation, involving the Federal Power Commission; and (3) whether Congress would approve a six-state ratification of the Colorado River Compact. This definitively excludes the possibility that the Phipps amendment, unlike the Hayden amendment, could have been intended to exclude California from any part of the million acre-feet referred to in Article III(b). Since, under the Phipps amendment, California was limited to 50% of all water above 7.5 million acre-feet of consumptive use, and Nevada disclaimed any intention of taking more than her share of the 7.5 million acre-feet, the language of that amendment had exactly the same effect as the language of the Hayden amendment which specifically 5S70 Cong. Rec. 333 (1928), Calif. Legis. Hist. p. 87. 5970 Cong. Rec. 382 (1928), Ariz. Legis. Hist. pp. 56-56C. Senator Hayden's motion to change 4.6 to 4.2 lost; Senator Brat-ton's motion to change the figure to 4.4 carried. 70 Cong. Rec. 384-387 (1928). |
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 |