OCR Text |
Show 564 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS between the upper basin and the lower basin, leaving to each basin the future internal allocation of its share." 35 And in fact this is all the Compact did. However, the Project Act, by referring to the Compact in several places, does make the Compact relevant to a limited extent. To begin with, the Act explicitly approves the Compact and thereby fixes a division of the waters between the basins which must be respected. Further, in several places the Act refers to terms contained in the Compact. For example, § 12 of the Act adopts the Compact definition of "domestic," 36 and § 6 requires satis- faction of "present perfected rights" as used in the Compact.37 Ob- viously, therefore, those particular terms, though originally formulated only for the Compact's allocation of water between basins, are incor- porated into the Act and are made applicable to the Project Act's allocation among Lower Basin States. The Act also declares that the Secretary of the Interior and the United States in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and other works and in the making of contracts shall be subject to and controlled by the Colorado River Compact.38 These latter references to the Compact are quite dif- ferent from the Act's adoption of Compact terms. Such references, unlike the explicit adoption of terms, were used only to show that the Act and its provisions were in no way to upset, alter, or affect the Com- pact's congressionally approved division of water between the basins. They were not intended to make the Compact and its provisions con- trol or affect the Act's allocation among and distribution of water within the States of the Lower Basin. Therefore, we look to the Com- pact for terms specifically incorporated in the Act, and we would also look to it to resolve disputes between the Upper and Lower Basins, were any involved in this case. But no such questions are here. We must determine wThat apportionment and delivery scheme in the Lower Basin has been effected through the Secretary's contracts. For that determination, we look to the Project Act alone. B. Mainstream Apportionment.-The congressional scheme of ap- portionment cannot be understood without knowing what water Con- gress wanted apportioned. Under California's view, which we reject, the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of Lower Basin water, of which California has agreed to use only 4,400,000, is made up of both mainstream and tributary water, not just mainstream water. Under the view of Ari- zona, 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. Assuming 7,500,000 acre-feet or more in the mainstream and 2,000,000 in the tributaries, California would get 1,000,000 acre-feet more if the tributaries are included and Arizona 1,000,000 less.39 California's argument that the Project Act, like the Colorado River Compact, deals with the main river and. all its tributaries rests on §4(a) of the Act, which limits California to 4,400,000 acre-feet "of the waters apportioned to the lower basin States by paragraph (a) 33 H.R. Doc. No. 717, 80tli Cong., 2d Sess. 22 (194S). 88" 'Domestic' whenever employed In this Act shall include water uses defined as 'domestic in said Colorado River Compact.' " 37 The dam and reservoir shall be used, among other things, for "satisfaction of present perfected rights in pursuance of Article VIII of said Colorado River compact." 88 §§ 1, 8(a)', 13(b> and (c). 39 Also, California would reduce Nevada's share of the mainstream waters from 300,000 acre-feet to 120,500 acre-feet. |