| OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER IX SUPREME COURT OPINION - ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA OF JUNE 3, 1963, 373 U.S. 546; AND DECREE OF MARCH 9, 1964, 376 U.S. 340 A. Issues Mr. Justice Black delivered the Opinion of the Court. He stated that: "The basic controversy in the case is over how much water each State has a legal right to use out of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries." (Opinion, page 551.) According to the Court this question turned on the meaning and the scope of the Boulder Canyon Project Act passed by Congress in 1928, 45 Stat. 1057 (1928) which controlled the solution of the issue. The Court concluded that Congress, acting under the powers granted by the Commerce Clause and the Property Clause of the Constitution, in enacting the Boulder Canyon Project Act, provided a method of apportionment of waters among the States of the Lower Basin; that the method chosen in the Act "was a complete statutory apportionment intended to put an end to the long standing dispute over Colorado River waters." (Opinion page 560.) The Court observed that Section 4 (a) of the Act was designed to protect the Upper Basin against California should Arizona refuse to ratify the Compact. It provided that, if fewer than seven States ratified within 6 months, the Act should not take effect unless six States including California ratified and unless California, by its legislature, agreed "irrevocably and unconditionally...as an express covenant" to a limit on its annual consumption of Colorado River water of 4.4 maf of the waters apportioned to the Lower Basin States by Article III(a) of the Colorado River Compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unappor-tioned by said Compact. Section 4(a) of the Act, said the Court, also showed the continuing desire of Congress to have California, Arizona, and Nevada settle their own differences by authorizing them to make an agreement apportioning to Nevada 300,000 acre-feet, and to Arizona 2.8 maf plus one-half of any surplus waters unapportioned by the Compact. The permitted agreement also would allow Arizona exclusive use of the Gila River wholly free from any Mexican obligation, a position Arizona had taken from the beginning. Sections 5 and 8(b) of the Project Act made provisions for the sale of the stored water. The Court noted that the Project Act became effective on June 25, 1929, by Presidential proclamation after six States, including California, had ratified the Colorado River Compact and the California legislature accepted the limitation of 4.4 maf as required by the Act. Neither the three States nor any two of them ever entered into any apportionment compact as authorized by Sections 4(a) and 8(b). After the construction of Hoover Dam the Secretary had made contracts with various users in California for 5,362,000 acre-feet, with Nevada for 300,000 acre-feet, and with Arizona for 2,800,000 acre-feet of water from that stored at Lake Mead. The Court observed that the Special Master found that the Colorado River Compact, the law of prior appropriation, and the doctrine of equitable apportionment do not control the issues in this case. The Court noted that the Master concluded that, since the Lower Basin States had failed to make a compact to allocate the waters among themselves as authorized by Sections 4 (a) and 8(b) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Secretary's contracts with the States had, within the statutory scheme of Sections 4(a), 5 and 8(b), effected an apportionment of the waters of the mainstream which, according to the Master, were the only waters to be apportioned under the Act. The Court further noted that the Master had held that, in the event of a shortage of water which made impossible the supply of water due the three States under their contracts, the burden of the shortage must be borne by each State in proportion to their share of the first 7.5 maf allocated to the Lower Basin (the Court differed with this). Arizona, Nevada, and the United States supported with few exceptions the Special Master's Report, but California was in basic disagreement with almost all of the Master's Report. 143 |
