| OCR Text |
Show IX-4 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS (d) It is the Act and the contracts made by the Secretary of the Interior under § 5, not the law of prior appropriation, that control the apportionment of water among the States; and the Secretary, in choosing between the users within each State and in settling the terms of his contracts, is not required by §§ 14 and 18 of the Act to follow state law. Pp. 585-586. (e) Section 8 of the Reclamation Act does not require the United States, in the delivery of water, to follow priorities laid down by state law; and the Secretary is not bound by state law in disposing of water under the Project Act. Pp. 586-587. (f) The general saving language of § 18 of the Project Act does not bind the Secretary by state law or nullify the contract power expressly conferred upon him by § 5 Pp. 587-588. (g) Congress has put the Secretary of the Interior in charge of a whole network of useful projects constructed by the Federal Government up and down the Colorado River, and it has entrusted him with sufficient power, principally the § 5 contract power, to direct, manage and coordinate their operation. This power must be construed to permit him to allocate and distribute the waters of the mainstream of the Colorado River within the boundaries set down by the Act. Pp. 588-590. 2. Certain provisions in the Secretary's contracts are sustained, with one exception. Pp. 590-592. (a) The Secretary's contracts with Arizona and Nevada are sustained, insofar as they provide that any waters diverted by those States out of the mainstream above Lake Mead must be charged to their respective Lower Basin apportionments; but he cannot reduce water deliveries to those States by the amount of their uses from tributaries above Lake Mead, since Congress intended to apportion only the mainstream, leaving to each State her own tributaries. Pp. 590-591. (b) The fact that the Secretary has made a contract directly with the State of Nevada, through her Colorado River Commission, for the delivery of water does not impair the Secretary's power to require Nevada water users, other than the State, to make further contracts. Pp. 591-592. 3. In case of water shortage, the Secretary is not bound to require a pro rata sharing of shortages. He must follow the standards set out in the Act; but he is free to choose among the recognized methods of apportionment or to devise reasonable methods of his own, since Congress has given him full power to control, manage and operate the Government's Colorado River works and to make contracts for the sale and delivery of water on such terms as are not prohibited by the Act. Pp. 592-594. 4. With respect to the conflicting claims of Arizona and New Mexico to water in the Gila River, the compromise settlement agreed upon by those States and incorporated in the Master's recommended decree is accepted by this Court. Pp. 594-595. 5. As to the claims asserted by the United States to waters in the main river and some of its tributaries for use on Indian reservations, national forests, recreational and wildlife areas and other government lands and works, this Court approves the Master's decision as to which claims required adjudication, and it approves the decree he recommended for the government claims he did decide. Pp. 595-601. (a) This Court sustains the Master's finding that, when the United States created the Chemehuevi, Cocopah, Yuma, Colorado River and Fort Mohave Indian Reservations in Arizona, California and Nevada, or added to them, it reserved not only the land but also the use of enough water from the Colorado River to irrigte the irrigable portions of the reserved lands. Pp. 595-597. |
