| OCR Text |
Show 570 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS "One [dispute] is how the seven and a half million acre-feet shall be divided in the lower basin. The Senate has settled that by a vote-that California may have 4,400,000 acre-feet of that water. It follows logically that if that demand is to be conceded, as every- body agrees, the remainder is 2,800,000 acre-feet for Arizona. That settles that part of the controversy*" 75 On the same day, Senator Pittman, intimately familiar with the whole water problem,76 summed up the feeling of the Senate that the bill fixed a limit on California and "practically allocated" to Arizona her share of the water: "The Senate* has already determined upon the division of water between those States. How ? It has determined how much water California may use, and the rest of it is subject to use by Nevada and Arizona. Nevada has already admitted that it can use only an insignificant quantity, 300,000 acre-feet. That leaves the rest of it to Arizona. As the bill now stands it is just as much divided as if they had mentioned Arizona and Nevada and the amounts they are to get. . . . ******* "As I understand this amendment, Arizona to-day has prac- tically allocated to it 2,800,000 acre-feet of water in the main Colorado River." 77 The Senator went on to explain why the Senate had found it neces- sary to set up its own plan for allocating the water: "Why do we not leave it to California to say how much water she shall take out of the river or leave it to Arizona to say how much water she shall take out of the river? It is because it happens to become a duty of the United States Senate to settle this matter, and that is the reason." 78 Not only do the closing days of the debate show that Congress in- tended an apportionment among the States but also provisions of the Act create machinery plainly adequate to accomplish this purpose, whatever contingencies might occur. As one alternative of the congres- sional scheme, §4(a) of the Act invited Arizona, California, and Nevada to adopt a compact dividing the waters along the identical lines that had formed the basis for the congressional discussions of the Act: 4,400,000 acre-feet to California. 300,000 to Nevada, and 2,800,000 to Arizona. Section 8(b) gave the States power to agree upon some other division, which would have to be approved by Congress. Con- gress made sure, however, that if the States did not agree on any com- pact the objects of the Act would be carried out, for the Secretary would then proceed, by making contracts, to apportion water among the States and to allocate the water among users within each State. ™ Id., at 467. See also id., at 465. 76 For example, Senator Pittman's active role in resolving the whole Colorado River problem was acknowledged by Senator Hayden on the Senate floor : "When Congress assembled in December, 1927, no agreement had been made. The senior Senator from Nevada [Mr. Pittman], in continuation of the earnest efforts that he has made all these years to bring about a settlement of the controversy between the States with respect to the Colorado River, invited a number of us to conferences in his office and there we talked over the situation." Id., at 172. " Id., at 468-469. 78 Id., at 471. The Senator added, "We have already decided as to the division of the water, and we say that if the States wish they can enter into a subsidiary agreement con- firming that." Ibid. |
