OCR Text |
Show 568 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS her existing economy depended.51 Arizona's claim was supported by the fact that only she and New Mexico could effectively use the Gila waters, which not only entered the Colorado River too close to Mexico to be of much use to any other State but also was reduced virtually to a trickle in the hot Arizona summers before it could reach the Colo- rado. In the debates the Senators consistently acknowledged that the tributaries-or at least the waters of the Gila, the only major Arizona tributary-were excluded from the allocation they were making. Sen- ator Hayden, in response to questions by Senator Johnson, said that the California Senator was correct in stating that the Senate had seen fit to give Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet in addition to all the water in the Gila.58 Senator Johnson had earlier stated, "[I]t is only the main stream, Senators will recall, that has been discussed," and one of his arguments in favor of California's receiving 4,600,000 acre-feet rather than 4,200,000 was that Arizona was going to keep all her tributaries in addition to whatever portion of the main river was allocated to her.59 Senator Johnson also argued that Arizona should bear more than half the Lower Basin's Mexican burden because in addition to the 2,800,- 000 acre-feet allotted her by the Act she would get the Gila, which he erroneously estimated at 3,500,000 acre-feet.60 Senator Pittman, who had sat in on the Governors' conference, likewise understood that the water was being allocated from "the main Colorado River." 61 And other interested Senators similarly distinguished between the main- stream and the tributaries.62 While the debates, extending over a long period of years, undoubtedly contain statements which support infer- ences in conflict with those we have drawn, wTe are persuaded by the legislative history as a whole that the Act was not intended to give California any claim to share in the tributary waters of the other Lower Basin States. C. The Project Act's Apportionment and Distribution Scheme.-• The legislative history, the language of the Act, and the scheme estab- lished by the Act for the storage and delivery of water convince us also that Congress intended to provide its own method for a complete apportionment of the mainstream water among Arizona, California, and Nevada. First, the legislative history. In hearings on the House bill that became the Project Act, Congressman Arentz of Nevada, apparently impatient with the delay to this much needed project, told the com- mittee on January 6, 1928, that if the States could not themselves allocate the water, "there must be some power which will say to Cali- fornia 'You can not take any more than this amount and the balance is allocated to the other States.'" 63 Later, May 25, 1928, the House passed the bill,61 but it did not contain any allocation scheme. When the Senate took up that bill in December, pressure mounted swiftly for amendments that would provide a workable method for appor- 57 E.g., Report, Colorado River Commission of Arizona (1927), reprinted in Hearings on H.R. 5773, supra note 25, at 25-31; 69 Cong. Ree. 9454 (1928) (Arizona's proposal at Denver). 58 70 Cong. Rec. 467-468 (1928). See also id., at 463-464, 465. m Id., at 237. 80 Id., at 466-467. at Id., at 469. See also id., at 232. "2 See id., at 463 (Shortridge) ; id., at 465 (King). 113 Hearings on H.R. 5773, supra note 25, at 50 84 69 Cong. Ree. 9990 (1928). |