| OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER VIII 141 C.20 Rejection of Permanent Commission California and Nevada have suggested that it would be useful for the Court to provide for a permanent commission or commissioner to administer the decree. The Special Master did not regard this as necessary. In view of the control of the mainstream vested in the Secretary of the Interior, he will in effect administer the decree. C.21 Claims to Waters in Tributaries The Special Master divided the controversies arising over tributary water into two general categories. The first category is the controversy between mainstream States and tributary States regarding rights in tributary supply. California expressed concern that increased use on the tributaries will decrease mainstream supply and proposed to treat present tributary inflow as part of the dependable supply in the mainstream. Arizona declared that adjudication of rights in tributary water would be premature and unwarranted. Nevada did not ask that increased uses on the tributaries be enjoined and sought a decree in favor of tributary users as against mainstream interests. It was the conclusion of the Special Master that the principles of equitable apportionment controlled rights of mainstream States in water of the tributaries of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin. He concluded that the Compact did not displace those principles since it does not govern the relations, inter sese, of the States having Lower Basin interests nor did the Project Act and the California Limitation Act render the principles of equitable apportionment inapplicable. The tributaries which empty into the Colorado River in the Lower Basin, other than the Gila River, make a substantial contribution to the mainstream supply. However, the Special Master concluded there is no need to make an apportionment of tributary waters between mainstream and tributary States since mainstream users are presently enjoying the use of tributary flow and there is no indication that such enjoyment is in immediate danger of being interfered with. Hence, mainstream rights to tributary inflow ought not now be adjudicated and a more equitable apportionment might later be achieved when all practical aspects of the decreee are ascertained. The second category are the controversies over tributary water in the tributary States, inter sese. These concern four tributary systems which flow into the Colorado River in the Lower Basin; i.e., the Little Colorado River System, the Virgin River System, Johnson and Kanab Creeks, and the Gila River System. Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah sought to confirm present uses and to reserve water for future requirements on the inter-State tributaries of the Colorado River flowing within their borders. Arizona did not seek similar adjudication other than in the Gila River System. The United States claimed rights to the use of water from these tributaries for Indian Reservations and other Federal establishments. Since there was no evidence that a substantial conflict existed over the present use of tributary waters, except for the Gila River, and since there is presently unused tributary water regularly flowing into the mainstream from all of the tributaries except the Gila River, the Special Master concluded that the rights of tributary users, inter sese, to make increased use of tributary water in the future ought not to be adjudicated. Similarly the Special Master felt it premature to determine the extent of United States rights in the tributaries. Since the tributaries are not subject to the legal and physical control of the Secretary there was no need to determine priorities in order that the Secretary of the Interior may know how to discharge his duties. C.22 Gila River System C.22.1 New Mexico's Claims New Mexico sought an apportionment of the quantity of Gila River System waters in that State to satisfy its present and future requirements. These claims were resisted by both Arizona and the United States. Since the Gila River System is overappropriated and the available supply is not sufficient to satisfy the needs of existing projects, the Special Master concluded it was appropriate to adjudicate the controversy among New Mexico, Arizona and the United States over the right to water in the Gila System. |
