OCR Text |
Show 578 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS III. Apportionment and Contracts in Time or Shortage We have agreed with the Master that the Secretary's contracts with Arizona for 2,800,000 acre-feet of water and with Nevada for 300,000, together with the limitation of California to 4,400,000 acre- feet, effect a valid apportionment of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water in the Lower Basin. There remains the question of what shall be done in time of shortage. The Master, while declin- ing to make any findings as to what future supply might be expected, nevertheless decided that the Project Act and the Secretary's con- tracts require the Secretary in case of shortage to divide the burden 44 among the three States in this proportion: California-^-z-; Arizona 9 g o 7.5 ^Y; Nevada^1-. While pro rata sharing of water shortages seems equitable on its face,96 more considered judgment may demonstrate quite the contrary. Certainly we should not bind the Secretary to this formula. We have held that the Secretary is vested with con- siderable control over the apportionment of Colorado River waters. And neither the Project Act nor the water contracts require the use of any particular formula for apportioning shortages. While the Secre- tary must follow the standards set out in the Act, he nevertheless is free to choose among the recognized methods of apportionment or to devise reasonable methods of his own. This choice, as we see it, is pri- marily his, not the Master's or even ours. And the Secretary may or may not conclude that a pro rata division is the best solution. It must be remembered that the Secretary's decision may have an effect not only on irrigation uses but also on other important func- tions for which Congress brought this great project into being- flood control, improvement of navigation, regulation of flow, and gen- eration and distribution of electric power. Requiring the Secretary to prorate shortages would strip him of the very power of choice which we think Congress, for reasons satisfactory to it, vested in him and which we should not impair or take away from him. For the same reasons we cannot accept California's contention that in case of shortage each State's share of water should be determined by the judicial doctrine of equitable apportionment or by the law of prior appropriation. These principles, while they may provide some guid- ance, are not binding upon the Secretary where, as here, Congress, with full power to do so, has provided that the waters of a navigable stream shall be harnessed, conserved, stored, and distributed through a government agency under a statutory scheme. None of this is to say that in case of shortage, the Secretary cannot adopt a method of proration or that he may not lay stress upon priority of use, local laws and customs, or any other factors that might be helpful in reaching an informed judgment in harmony with the Act, the best interests of the Basin States, and the welfare of the Nation. It will be time enough for the courts to intervene when and 96 Proration of shortage is the method agreed upon by the United States and Mexico to adjust Mexico's share of Colorado River water should there be insufficient water to supply each country's apportionment. |