OCR Text |
Show 145 between Lee Ferry and the dam, evaporation loss from Lake Mead, and its share of the Mexican treaty obligation. The Compact provides for the delivery of water by the states of the Upper Division at Lee Ferry, in addition to the supply guaranteed by III(d), when the obligation to Mexico cannot be satisfied "from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) [of Article III of the Compact] . . . ." In that event, "the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the upper basin and the lower basin, and whenever necessary the states of the upper division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half of the deficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d)" of Article III. At the time the Compact was signed (1922) and when it became effective (1929), the United States was under no treaty obligation to Mexico and the Compact created no obligation. However, in 1944 the United States and Mexico negotiated a treaty, proclaimed in 1945, under which the United States has the duty to deliver 1,500,000 acre-feet annually to the United States of Mexico at the international boundary.13 Several questions arise regarding the effect of Article III(c), and the parties have offered various suggestions regarding its interpretation. These questions include: (1) what is the meaning of the word "surplus"? (2)If surplus is not sufficient to supply Mexico, how should the Upper Basin's further delivery obligation be measured under the language of Article III(c) ? In my judgment, the various questions advanced by the parties concerning construction of this subdivision ought not to be answered in the absence of the states of the Upper Basin; nor need they be answered in order to dispose of this litigation affecting only Lower Basin interests. Under the interpretation which I propose of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the water delivery contracts made by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant "This obligation is subject to several qualifications; the treaty is discussed infra at pages 295-296. |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California |