| OCR Text |
Show systems of accounting for water uses will, so far as Imperial Irrigation District is concerned, only generate further controversies. Comments on the Decision: The Court in this decision seemed to be well aware of the fact that it was dealing only with the Lower Basin. The Court also seemed to be aware that the Colorado River Compact was in existence and had to somehow be considered in any Lower Basin controversy. The Court stated that the Compact division had to be honored. However, at this point it seems that the Court was considering the III (d) allocation of water that had to be honored and it must be admitted that it is not clear whether the Court was dividing in the Lower Basin the III (d) allocation, or whether it became confused at this point and superimposed upon the III (d) allocation to the Lower Basin the III (a) and III (b) apportionment made to the Lower Basin. It must be admitted that the failure to make this distinction between water available for use and consumptive use is not unique to the Supreme Court, for when one considers the debates in Congress during the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act the feeling is generated that the Congress, particularly the Senators, were also confused on this particular point. In fact, this apparent confusion is probably behind the Arizona position that so far as the Lower Basin is concerned, the Compact only dealt with mainstream. Arizona in taking this position apparently attempts to bring rational order out of seeming chaos of the debates by claiming that the tributaries were never a part of the Colorado River system so far as the Lower Basin was concerned, and that the Compact itself dealt only with Lower Basin mainstream. Perhaps the greatest impact of this decision is the awesome power granted to the Secretary of the Interior. In the Lower Basin the Secretary of the Interior is given almost absolute control of the Lower Colorado River with very little practical safeguards or control so far as the parties are concerned. The dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan clearly demonstrated that there will be very little effective control of the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior in his operation of the river under the decision in this case. Marble Canyon As indicated in the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, the Presiding Examiner on September 16, 1962 filed his recommended decision in the Arizona Power Authority's application for a federal license to build a power project at Marble Canyon. Subsequent to this decision, the Secretary of 35 |
