| OCR Text |
Show 602 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS To repeat, the words "excess or surplus waters unapportioned by said compact," as used in § 4(a) of the Project Act, mean, in my view, all waters available in the Lower Basin in excess of the first 7,500,- 000 acre-feet covered by Article III (a) of the Compact.7 The additional 1,000,000 acre-feet described in Article III(b) was added to the Compact "to compensate for the waters of the Gila River and its tributaries being included within the definition of the Colorado River System." Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, 350- 351; and though Arizona has long claimed those 1,000,000 acre-feet as hers, that construction of Article III(b) of the Compact was re- jected long ago. Arizona v. California, supra, p. 358. V. While the legislative history of the California limitation contained in §4(a) looks several ways, much of it is legislative history made with a view to its favorable use in the future-a situation we have noticed on other occasions. See Schwegmann Bros v. Calvert Corp., 341 U.S. 384. I think an objective reading of that history shows that the tri-state compact authorized by § 4(a) of the Project Act (a compact never made) was the one and only way visualized by that Act through which Arizona could get the exclusive use of the waters of the Gila River. For the second paragraph of § 4(a) of the Project Act states that the tri-state compact, if made, shall give Arizona "the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of the Gila River and its tributaries" within the boundaries of Arizona. Fears that this appropriation would injure New Mexico are not relevant to our problem, since the proposed tri- state compact would not hurt New Mexico unless she agreed to it. The legal rights of States not parties to the Compact would be unimpaired, as Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423,462, holds. The same applies to any concern that Upper Basin rights would be imperiled by the tri- state compact. After much discussion, the amendment allocating 4,400,000 acre-feet to California by § 4(a) of the Project Act was finalized by Senator Phipps, Chairman of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, who identified those 4,400,000 acre-feet as system waters. He made it unmistakably clear by adding to § 4(a) the words "by paragraph (a) of Article III" of the Compact which in his words "show that that allocation of waters refers directly to the seven and one-half million acre-feet of water" described by Article III (a) of the Compact. 70 Cong. Rec. 459. That amendment was agreed to without a roll call. 70 Cong. Rec. 473. Prior to that time Senator Phipps had proposed that California receive 4,600,000 acre-feet. Id., p. 335. The following colloquy took place: "Mr. Hayden. Under the circumstances I should like to inquire of the Senator from Colorado how he arrives at the figure 4,600,000 acre-feet of water instead of 4,200,000 acre-feet as proposed in my amendment ? "Mr. Phipps. It was just about as difficult for me to arrive at 4,600,000 acre-feet as it would have been to arrive at 4,200,000 acre- feet. The arguments pro and con have been debated in the com- 7 See note 3, supra. |
