OCR Text |
Show B. LEGAL Arizona v. California, et al On June 3, 1963 the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the above entitled case. In our past Annual Reports we have attempted to outline the current activities in this particular case. Apparently this case is nearing its final determination. We say "apparently" because the Court gave California until September 16, 1963 to file petitions for rehearing. On this date, the State of California, Metropolitan Water District, and Imperial Irrigation District filed separate petitions for rehearing. The Court has not acted upon these petitions for rehearing. By way of preface it should be pointed out that the Court has before it a perplexing and difficult water problem. The welfare of an entire region may well hinge upon the final decision. As one reads the Opinion he cannot help but feel that the Court is keenly aware of its responsibilities. The Supreme Court did not deviate greatly from the Special Master's Opinion. In the particulars which the Court did not follow the Special Master's Opinion important and far-reaching changes were made by the Supreme Court. A summary of the holdings of the Court are as follows. 1. The Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat. 1057 (1928), 43 USC 617-167T, is the law which controls the solution of the issues presented by the case. In this Act Congress, acting under its powers granted by the Commerce Clause and the Property Clause of the United States Constitution, devised a complete solution of the Lower Basin controversy that has existed on the Colorado River between Arizona and California for 40 years. 2. The Colorado River Compact does not supply any real guide in the solution of the dispute because the Compact is an interbasin document and could not determine the division of the Lower Basin's share of the water granted to it under the Compact. 3. Equitable apportionment is not applicable to the case inasmuch as Congress, in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, devised a statutory allocation of the waters of the main stream of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin, and, therefore, there was no reason to apply the rules of equitable apportionment in the case. In other words, equitable apportionment, as established in past interstate water cases before the Supreme Court, was for the purpose of determining issues where there was no statutory guide to direct the Court. 30 |