Arizona v. California
373 U.S. 546 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When Congress enacts a comprehensive statutory scheme for the apportionment of water from an interstate stream, that statute displaces the judicial doctrine of equitable apportionment and state prior appropriation laws. The Boulder Canyon Project Act created such a scheme, granting the Secretary of the Interior broad authority to apportion the mainstream waters of the Lower Colorado River through contracts.
Facts:
- The Colorado River flows through an arid region of the southwestern United States, where its water is a critical resource for agriculture and urban development.
- Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the states in the river's basin were in constant conflict over rights to the water, particularly as California's rapid growth led to increasing diversions.
- The river's natural flow was highly erratic, causing both destructive floods and severe droughts, and the engineering projects required to control it were too large and expensive for any single state or private entity to undertake.
- Following the Supreme Court's 1922 decision in Wyoming v. Colorado, which applied the doctrine of prior appropriation between states, Upper Basin states feared that California would appropriate the majority of the Lower Basin's water before they could develop their own uses.
- In 1922, the seven basin states negotiated the Colorado River Compact, which apportioned 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of water per year to the Upper Basin and 7.5 MAF to the Lower Basin, but it failed to allocate specific shares among the individual states within the Lower Basin.
- Arizona refused to ratify the 1922 Compact, fearing California's dominance and objecting to the inclusion of its main tributary, the Gila River, in the overall water accounting.
- After years of failed interstate negotiations to divide the Lower Basin's share, Congress passed the Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1928 to authorize the federal construction of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal.
- The Act's effectiveness was conditioned on California's legislature agreeing to limit its annual consumptive use to 4.4 MAF of the first 7.5 MAF apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Compact, plus not more than one-half of any surplus waters.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1952, the State of Arizona filed a complaint against the State of California and seven of its public agencies, invoking the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
- Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and the United States were subsequently added as parties to the case.
- The Supreme Court referred the case to a Special Master to take evidence, find facts, state conclusions of law, and recommend a decree.
- The Special Master conducted a trial lasting from June 14, 1956, to August 28, 1958.
- On January 16, 1961, the Special Master submitted his report to the Court.
- The Special Master's report concluded that the Boulder Canyon Project Act, not judicial doctrines or state law, controlled the apportionment of mainstream waters, and that the Secretary of the Interior's contracts had lawfully effected this apportionment.
- California and other parties filed exceptions to the Special Master's report, bringing the case before the Supreme Court for oral argument and a final decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Boulder Canyon Project Act establish a comprehensive federal statutory scheme for the apportionment of mainstream Colorado River water among the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, thereby superseding the judicial doctrine of equitable apportionment and state laws of prior appropriation?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. Congress, in passing the Boulder Canyon Project Act, created its own comprehensive scheme for the apportionment of the mainstream waters of the Colorado River among California, Arizona, and Nevada, leaving each state its tributaries. The Act gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to implement this apportionment through water delivery contracts. The Court reasoned that the decades-long controversy and the inability of the states to agree demonstrated Congress's intent to provide a federal, statutory solution. This intent is embodied in the Act's specific limitation on California's share in § 4(a) (4.4 MAF) and the mandate in § 5 that no person may receive stored water without a contract with the Secretary. These provisions grant the Secretary the power to allocate the water in the amounts Congress intended: 4.4 MAF for California, 2.8 MAF for Arizona, and 0.3 MAF for Nevada. The Court held that where Congress has exercised its constitutional power over navigable waters to create such a detailed apportionment scheme, federal law is supreme, and judicial doctrines like equitable apportionment and state laws of prior appropriation have no place. In times of shortage, the Secretary has the discretion to allocate the burden, bound only by the standards in the Act, including the protection of 'present perfected rights'.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. The Boulder Canyon Project Act was not intended to abrogate the established principles of equitable apportionment and state water law, nor did it grant the Secretary of the Interior the 'awesome power' to control the water destiny of three states. The majority's holding results in an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to an executive official without adequate standards. The dissent argued that the Act's history reveals a deep congressional respect for state sovereignty and reluctance to interfere with water rights. Section 4(a) was merely a ceiling on California's appropriations, not a grant of apportionment authority to the Secretary. Section 5, requiring contracts, was primarily a revenue-raising provision and a tool to enforce the Compact, not a means to displace state law. The Act's express preservation of state laws in §§ 14 and 18 should have been given effect, leaving the allocation of water to be governed by the traditional principles of equitable apportionment and priority of appropriation, as modified by the Compact and the California limitation.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. The Court's decision is the 'baldest attempt by judges in modern times to spin their own philosophy into the fabric of the law' by granting the federal bureaucracy power over water rights that Congress never intended. Furthermore, the Court misinterprets the Act by restricting California's water rights to the mainstream of the river. The dissent argued that the plain language of both the Project Act and the Colorado River Compact refers to the entire 'Colorado River System,' which explicitly includes tributaries. Therefore, when calculating the Lower Basin's total water supply to determine California's 4.4 MAF share and its right to surplus, water used from tributaries within Arizona and other states should be included in the accounting. By awarding tributaries exclusively to Arizona and excluding them from the calculation, the Court's decision contradicts the statutory text and unfairly reduces California's allocation.
Analysis:
This landmark case fundamentally altered water law in the western United States by establishing the supremacy of a comprehensive federal statute over the Court's common law doctrine of equitable apportionment. The decision affirmed broad congressional power over interstate navigable streams and vested significant authority in the Secretary of the Interior, transforming the federal government's role from a simple carrier of water to the primary allocator for the Lower Colorado River. It created a unique, congressionally mandated water allocation system that is not based on traditional state law principles. The ruling continues to be the foundational legal authority for all water management decisions on the Lower Colorado River, profoundly impacting the economies and development of Arizona, California, and Nevada.
Unlock the full brief for Arizona v. California