OCR Text |
Show 566 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS vided by the states of the upper division at Lee Ferry under the terms of the Colorado River Compact." The Governors' suggestions, like those of the States, explicitly reserved to each State as against the other States the exclusive use of her own tributaries. Arizona agreed to the Governors' proposal, but she wanted it made clear that her tributaries were to be exempted from any Mexican obligation.43 California rejected the whole proposal, insisting that she must have 4,600,000 acre-feet from the mainstream, or, as she put it, "from the waters to be provided by the States of the upper division at Lee Ferry under the Colorado River compact." 4<t Neither in the States' original offers, nor in the Governors' suggestions, nor in the States' responses was the "Colorado River System"-mainstream plus tributaries-ever used as the basis for Lower Basin allocations; rather, it was always mainstream water, or the water to be delivered by the upper States at Lee Ferry, that is to say, an annual average of 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water. With the continued failure of Arizona and California to reach ac- cord, there was mounting impetus for a congressional solution. A Swing-Johnson bill containing no limitation on California's uses finally passed the House in 1928 over objections by Representatives from Arizona and Utah.45 When the bill reached the Senate, it was amended in committee to provide that the Secretary in his water de- livery contracts must limit California to 4,600,000 acre-feet "of the water allocated to the lower basin by the Colorado River compact . . . and one-half of the unallocated, excess, and/or surplus water . . . ." 46 On the floor, Senator Phipps of Colorado proposed an amendment which would allow the Act to go into effect without any limitation on California if seven States ratified the Compact; if only six States ratified and if the California Legislature accepted the limitation, the Act could still become effective.47 Arizona's Senator Hayden had al- ready proposed an amendment reducing California's share to 4,200,000 acre-feet (the Governors' proposal), plus half of the surplus, leaving Arizona exclusive use of the Gila free from any Mexican obligation,48 but this the Senate rejected.49 Senator Bratton of New Mexico, noting that only 400,000 acre-feet kept Arizona and California apart, im- mediately suggested an amendment by which they would split the difference, California getting 4,400,000 acre-feet "of the waters ap- portioned to the lower basin States by the Colorado River compact," plus half of the surplus.50 It was this Bratton amendment that became part of the Act as passed,51 which had been amended on the floor so that the limitation referred to waters apportioned to the Lower Basin "by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact," instead of waters apportioned "by the Colorado River compact." 52 43 Hearings on H.R. 5773, supra note 25, at 30-31. 44 Id., at 402. 45 H.R. 5773, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.; 69 Cong. Rec. 9989-9990 (1928). 46 S. Rep. No. 592, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1928). 47 70 Cong. Rec. 324 (1928). 48 Id., at 162. 49 Id., at 384. 50 Id., at 385. B145 Stat. 1057 (1928), Arizona's Senators Ashurst and Hayden voted against the bill, which did not exempt the Gila from the Mexican burden. 70 Cong. Rec. 603 (1928). 82 70 Cong. Rec. 459 (1928). That this change was not intended to cause the States to give up their tributaries may reasonably be inferred from the fact that the amendment was agreed to by Senator Hayden, who was a constant opponent of including the tributaries. |