OCR Text |
Show 144 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS B. Boulder Canyon Project Act Controlled Apportionment The Supreme Court concluded that: "...Congress in passing the Project Act intended to and did create its own comprehensive scheme for the apportionment among California, Arizona, and Nevada of the mainstream waters of the Colorado River, leaving each State its tributaries. Congress decided that a fair division of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water would give 4,400,000 acre-feet to California, 2,800,000 to Arizona, and 300,000 to Nevada; Arizona and California would each get one-half of any surplus...Division of the water did not, however, depend on the States agreeing to a compact, for Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior adequate authority to accomplish the division. Congress did this by giving the Secretary power to make contracts for the delivery of water and by providing that no person could have water without a contract." (Opinion page 565.) C. Compact, Prior Appropriation and Equitable Apportionment Inapplicable The Court rejected California's argument that the doctrine of equitable apportionment was applicable and agreed with the Master that apportionment of the Lower Basin waters of the Colorado River was not controlled by that doctrine or by the Colorado River Compact; that while the doctrine of equitable apportionment was used to decide river controversies between States; e.g., Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945), in those cases Congress had not made any statutory apportionment. Thus, where Congress provided its own method for allocating among the Lower Basin States the mainstream water to which they are entitled under the Compact the courts have no power to substitute their own notions of an equitable apportionment for an apportionment chosen by Congress. The Court further agreed with the Special Master that the Colorado River Compact does not control this case. It stated that: "In this case, we have decided that Congress has provided its own method for allocating among the Lower Basin States the mainstream water to which they are entitled under the Compact...Nothing in that Compact purports to divide water among the Lower Basin States nor in any way to affect or control any future apportionment among those States or any distribution of water within a State." (Opinion page 565.) The Court noted that the Compact is relevant for some purposes. It provided an inter-Basin division; some of its terms are incorporated in the Project Act and are applicable to the Lower Basin, and were placed in the Act to insure that it would not "upset, alter or affect the Compact's Congressionally approved division of water between the Basins." (Opinion page 567.) D. States Control Use of Tributaries The Court rejected California's claim that the Project Act, like the Colorado River Compact; i.e., Section 4(a) of the Project Act and Article III(a) of the Compact, dealt with the main river and all of its tributaries. Another California view rejected by the Court was that the first 7.5 maf of Lower Basin water, of which California has agreed to use only 4.4 maf, is made up of both mainstream and tributary water, not just mainstream water. The Court concluded: "Under the view of Arizona, Nevada, and the United States, with which we agree, the tributaries are not included in the waters to be divided but remain for the exclusive use of each State." (Opinion page 567.) The court noted that assuming 7.5 maf or more in the mainstream and 2 maf in the tributaries, California would get 1.0 maf more if the tributaries are included and Arizona would get 1.0 maf less. Under the California view, diversions in Nevada and Arizona of tributary waters flowing in those States would be charged against their apportionments and that, because tributary water would be added to the mainstream water in computing the first 7.5 maf available to the States, there would be a greater likelihood of a surplus, of which California would get one-half; i.e., "much more water for California and much less for Arizona." The Court stated that the Project Act itself dealt only with waters of the mainstream and that the tributaries were reserved to each State's exclusive use. The Court noted that in the negotiations among the States the Lower Basin allocations dealt with "mainstream water, or the water to be delivered by the Upper States at |