OCR Text |
Show 592 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS the bill was made a part of the reclamation law, which "specifically protects each State in its water rights and in the rights of the citizens of those States to water." 68 Cong. Rec. 4292. Senator Pittman insisted there was nothing in the bill (prior to the California limitation) to prevent either Arizona or California from appropriating all the water she could use.26 Senator Phipps, whose amendment became the Cali- fornia limitation, declared that any dispute over the relative rights of Arizona and of Los Angeles would be resolved by the Secretary in accordance with priority of appropriation and the normal preference for domestic over agricultural use.27 Of further weight in supporting the view that Congress did not construe § 5 to destroy the law of appropriation and apportionment is the fact that the entire controversy over the California limitation took place after § 5 was added to the bill. Utah was so certain that Arizona remained free to appropriate water despite § 5 that she re- pealed her ratification of the six-state Compact thereafter.28 While the original committee amendment to the Act would have required the Secretary to limit California's appropriations, the debates evi- dence no conviction that the Secretary had even a permissive authority to do so by virtue of the unamended § 5. IV. The Bearing of Other Provisions of the Project Act Nothing in the Project Act expressly gives the Secretary power to ignore appropriations so long as financial conditions are met and the Compact and limitations are observed. Senators Hayden and Pittman, as the Court notes, did indicate that § 4(a) provided for an apportion- ment of the water, although even they did not suggest that § 4(a) gave any authority to the Secretary to make an apportionment by his con- tracts or to allocate the burdens in time of shortage. But in any event, as already noted, pp. 606-607, supra, § 4 does not by its terms make an apportionment; rather it simply requires six-state ratification of the Compact and an agreement by California to limit her share as conditions on the effectiveness of the Act, and authorizes an appor- tionment by the States themselves. In the words of Senator Johnson, the provision ". . . does not divide the water between Arizona and California. It fixes a maximum amount beyond which California can- not go." 70 Cong. Rec. 385. Nor does § 6, which requires that the dam be operated for the satis- faction of "present perfected rights" among other purposes, indicate by negative implication that the Secretary may ignore all other ap- 28 "If a dam shall be built at Boulder Canyon it will impound certain waters and equate the flow below. The water below will be subject to appropriation and use by both California and Arizona. ... In other words, there is nothing in this proposed, legislation that could prevent Arizona from appropriating from the Colorado River within her borders all of the water she could use for irrigation." 68 Cong. Rec. 4412. 27 "It seems to me that in resolving such a difficulty, should it arise, there would be taken into consideration the fact that water for domestic use should take priority over water intended for purposes of irrigation. Aside from that, these filings are first in point as compared with those to which the Senator from Arizona referred. They are for a superior use, and, in addition thereto, the applicant who has made the filing has pur- sued the proper course in developing the manner of appropriation or the manner of diverting th? water and putting it to the highest beneficial use. I do not anticipate any difficulty on that score in resolving the question of priority by the Secretary of the Interior." 70 Cong. Rec. 169. 28 See 68 Cong. Rec. 3064-3085 : Hearings before House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H.R. 5773, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 191, 193, 214-215. |