| OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 591 the relationship between § 5 and the law of appropriation. First he thought the Secretary would be required to deliver water to those who had appropriated it; then he said this would be required "[i]f they contract"; then he agreed the Secretary might withhold water "as he sees fit"; then he "doubt[ed] very much" whether the Secretary could disregard Los Angeles' appropriations; finally he said "possibly" the Secretary might utterly ignore appropriations. This shifting dialogue can scarcely be deemed an authoritative, or even useful, aid to construc- tion of the statute. Nor is there warrant for the Court's reliance on the statements of such opponents of the bill as Utah's Representative Douglas and Ari- zona's Representative Colton. Objections of opponents of a bill are seldom significant guides to its construction. See Schwegmann Bros. y. Calvert Distillers Corp.. 341 U.S. 384, 394-395. And in any event in this instance the opponents themselves were far from consistent in their views.23 Of far greater significance are the statements of the bill's supporters, which confirm that no power to ignore appropriations was given to the Secretary.24 Representative Swing, author of the bill, responded to Mr. Hayden's assertion that such a power was given with an emphatic denial: "the distribution will either be by agreement between the States or under their respective laws." House Hearings, supra, note 1, at 32. The following year he explained that the United States would not dispose of water rights under the bill; it would merely store water belonging to persons acquiring their rights under state law. See pp. 604-605, supra. In 1928, defending the House bill against an Ari- zona witness' charge that California might appropriate the entire Lower Basin supply, Mr. Swing did not dispute the statement as to California's rights but reinforced it by declaring that Arizona was free to make appropriations too. Hearings before House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H.R. 5773, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 57-58. He later assured the House that notwithstanding the bill Arizona "still has the benefit of the law of prior appropriation, and she still has the right to the beneficial use of any of the water she is able to put to use." 69 Cong. Rec. 9781. Delph Carpenter, proponent of the §5 contract requirement, said that it was designed to burden storage water Avith the Compact, and thus to protect the Upper Basin, and that "[i]t has nothing, to do with the interstate relations between Arizona and Cali- fornia." 25 Senator Johnson, sponsor of the Senate bill, told the Senate 28 Thus, almost In the same breath with which Representative Colton made his then seemingly dire prediction of national control, he declared that "Arizona is not a party at all to. this compact. She and her citizens may appropriate water at any time." Rft Cons. Rec. 9648. Arizona, as has already been pointed out, was busily opposing the bill on the specific ground that it left California free to appropriate from the river. 2i The one apparent exception to the unanimity of view among the bill's supporters is the statement in Representative Smith's report of the third Swing bill to the House: "AH rights respecting water or power under the project are, under the terms of the bill, to be disposed of by contract by the Government. It is not reasonable to assume that the Government will do anything of an unfair or prejudicial nature to Arizona." H.R. Rep. No. 16K7. 69th Cong., 2d Sess. 11. x See note 1, supra, and accompanying text. Mr. Carpenter's remarks also included the following1: "'Except by contract ma die as herein stated' means this: If thf> flow of the Colorado River Is controlled and regulated by the construction of the Black Canyon Dam, and any person in the State of Arizona attempt to take any water out of the stream which has been discharged from the reservoir and is being carried in the stream bed, as a natural conduit, for delivery to lower users, this law would be brought into effect and he would be prevented from using any of that water independent of the Colorado River compact but unincumbered by any other condition for the benefit of California and Nevada. In other words, the compact does not disturb the rights between Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Nevada, inter sese, as to their portion of the water." Hearings, supra, note 1, at 163. |
