| OCR Text |
Show the bill because it gave the Secretary of the Interior "absolute control" over the disposition of the stored waters.85 The argument that Congress would not have delegated to the Secre- tary so much power to apportion and distribute the water overlooks the ways in which his power is limited and channeled by standards in the Project Act. In particular, the Secretary is bound to observe the Act's limitation of 4,400,000 acre-feet on California's consumptive uses out of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water. This nec- essarily leaves the remaining 3,100,000 acre-feet for the use of Arizona and Nevada, since they are the only other States with access to the main Colorado Kiver. Nevada consistently took the position, accepted by the other States throughout the debates, that her conceivable needs would not exceed 300,000 acre-feet, which, of course, left 2,800,000 acre-feet for Arizona's use. Moreover, Congress indicated that it thought this a proper division of the waters when in the second para- graph of § 4(a) it gave advance consent to a tri-state compact adopt- ing such division. While no such compact was ever entered into, the Secretary by his contracts has apportioned the water in the approved amounts and thereby followed the guidelines set down by Congress. And, as the Master pointed out, Congress set up other standards and placed other significant limitations upon the Secretary's power to distribute the stored waters. It specifically set out in order the pur- poses for which the Secretary must use the dam and the reservoir: "First, for river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic uses and satis- faction of present perfected rights in pursuance of Article VIII of said Colorado River compact; and third, for power." § 6. The Act further requires the Secretary to make revenue provisions in his contracts adequate to ensure the recovery of the expenses of con- struction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and other works within 50 years after their construction. §4(b). The Secretary is di- rected to make water contracts for irrigation and domestic uses only for "permanent service." § 5. He and his permittees, licensees, and contractees are subject to the Colorado River Compact, § 8(a), and therefore can do nothing to upset or encroach upon the Compact's allo- cation of Colorado River water between the Upper and Lower Basins. In the construction, operation, and management of the works, the Sec- retary is subject to the provisions of the reclamation law, except as the Act otherwise provides. § 14. One of the most significant limitations in the Act is that the Secretary is required to satisfy present perfected rights, a matter of intense importance to those who had reduced their water rights to actual beneficial use at the time the Act became effec- tive. § 6. And, of course, all of the powers granted by the Act are ex- ercised by the Secretary and his well-established executive department, responsible to Congress and the President and subject to judicial review.86 86 69 Cong. Rec. 9623, 9648, 9649 (1928). We recognize, of course, that statements of opponents of a bill may not be authoritative, see Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U.S. 384, 394-395 (1951), but they are nevertheless relevant and useful, especially where, as here, the proponents of the bill made no response to the opponents' criticisms. 88 See, e.g., Ickes v. Fox, 300 U.S.* 82 (1937) ; cf. Best v. Humooldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334 (1963) ; Boesch v. Udall [373 U.S. 472 (1963)]. |
