OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 567 Statements made throughout the debates make it quite clear that Congress intended the 7,500,000 acre-feet it was allocating, and out of which California was limited to 4,400,000, to be mainstream water only. In the first place, the basin Senators expressly acknowledged as the starting point for their debate the Denver Governors' proposal that specific allocations be made to Arizona, California, and Nevada from the mainstream, leaving the tributaries to the States. For exam- ple, Senator Johnson, leading spokesman for California, and Senator Hayden, leading spokesman for Arizona, agreed that the Governors' recommendations could be used as "a basis for discussion."53 Hayden went on to observe that the Committee amendment would give Cali- fornia the same 4,600,000 acre-feet she had sought at Denver.54 Later, Nevada's Senator Pittman stated that the committee "put the amount in there that California demanded before the four governors at Den- ver," and said that the Bratton amendment would split the 400,000 acre-feet separating the Governors' figure and the Committee's fig- ure.55 All the leaders in the debate-Johnson, Bratton, King, Hayden, Phipps, and Pittman-expressed a common understanding that the key issue separating Arizona and California was the difference of 400,000 acre-feet,56 precisely the same 400,000 acre-feet of mainstream water that had separated the States at Denver. Were we to sustain California's argument here that tributaries must be included, Califor- nia would actually get more than she was willing to settle for at Denver. That the apportionment was from the mainstream only is also strongly indicated by an analysis of the second paragraph of § 4 (a) of the Act. There Congress authorized Arizona, Nevada, and Califor- nia to make a compact allocating to Nevada 300,000 acre-feet and to Arizona 2,800,000 plus one-half of the surplus, which, with Califor- nia's 4,400,000 and half of the surplus, would under California's inter- pretation of the Act exhaust the Lower Basin waters, both main- stream and tributaries. But Utah and New Mexico, as Congress knew, had interests in Lower Basin tributaries which Congress surely would have protected in some way had it meant for the tributaries of those two States to be included m the water to be divided among Arizona, Nevada, and California. We cannot believe that Congress would have permitted three States to divide among themselves water belonging to five States. Nor can we believe that the representatives of Utah and New Mexico would have sat quietly by and acquiesced in a congres- sional attempt to include their tributaries in waters given the other three States. Finally, in considering California's claim to share in the tributaries of other States, it is important that from the beginning of the discus- sions and negotiations which led to the Project Act, Arizona con- sistently claimed that she must have sole use of the Gila, upon which «/<*., at 77:. "* Ibid. Later, Senator Hayden said that his amendment incorporated the Governors' proposal. Id., at 172-173. 65 Id., at 386. mId., ait 164 (King), 165 (Johnson, Braitton),, 382 (Hayden, Phipps), 385 (Bratton),, 386 (Pittman). Senator Hayden's statement is representative: "I want to state to the Senate that what I am trying to accomplish is to get a vote on the one particular question of whether the quantity of water which the State of California may divert from the Colo- rado River should be 4,200,000 acre-feet or 4,600,000 acre-feet." Id., at 382. |