OCR Text |
Show 562 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS tracts, the burden of the shortage must be borne by each State in pro- portion to her share of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet allocated to the A A () Q O Lower Basin, that is, -^ by California, j~ by Arizona, and -±y by Nevada, without regard to the law of prior appropriation. Arizona, Nevada, and the United States support with few excep- tions the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations of the Special Master's report. These parties agree that Congress did not leave divi- sion of the waters to an equitable apportionment by this Court but instead created a comprehensive statutory scheme for the allocation of mainstream waters. Arizona, however, believes that the allocation formula established by the Secretary's contracts was in fact the for- mula required by the Act. The United States, along with California, thinks the Master should not have invalidated the provisions of the Arizona and Nevada water contracts requiring those States to deduct from their allocations any diversions of water above Lake Mead which reduce the flow into that lake. California is in basic disagreement with almost all of the Master's Report. She argues that the Project Act, like the Colorado River Com- pact, deals with the entire Colorado River System, not just the main- stream. This would mean that diversions within Arizona and Nevada 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 7,500,000 acre- feet available to the States, there would be a greater likelihood of a surplus, of which California gets one-half. The result of California's argument would be much more water for California and much less for Arizona. California also argues that the Act neither allocates the Colorado River waters nor gives the Secretary authority to make an allocation. Rather she takes the position that the judicial doctrine of equitable apportionment giving full interstate effect to the traditional western water law of prior appropriation should determine the rights of the parties to the water. Finally, California claims that in any event the Act doe® not control in time of shortage. Under such circumstances, she savs, this Court should divide the waters according to the doctrine of equitable apportionment or the law of prior appropriation, either of which, she argues, should result in protecting her prior uses. Our jurisdiction to entertain this suit is not challenged and could not well be since Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution gives this Court original jurisdiction of actions in which States are parties. In exer- cising that jurisdiction, we are mindful of this Court's often expressed preference that, where possible, States settled their controversies by "mutual accommodation and agreement."32 Those cases and others33 make it clear, however, that this 'Court does have a serious responsi- bility to adjudicate cases where there are actual, existing controversies over how interstate streams should be apportioned among States. This case is the most recent phase of a continuing controversy over the water of the Colorado River, which the States despite repeated efforts have been unable to settle. Resolution of this dispute requires a determination 32 Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383, 392 (1943) ; Nebraska V. Wyoming. 325 U.S. 589, 616 (1945). Mfl.g., Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 (1902) ; New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931). |