OCR Text |
Show 170 The reason for such diversity of opinion is that the words of Section 4(a), despite their superficial simplicity, cannot bear their literal meaning. This becomes apparent in the attempt to apply the language of Section 4 (a) to the factual situation in the Colorado River Basin. First of all, Section 4(a), if read literally, authorizes a compact which would deprive two states, New Mexico and Utah, of the use of Lower Basin tributary waters which are presently being consumed in those states and which were being consumed there in 1928 when the Project Act was enacted. Section 4(a) contemplates the division of the water referred to therein only among the three states of the Lower Basin which have geographic access to water flowing in the mainstream of the Colorado River, namely, Arizona, California and Nevada. This becomes clear when we read the first and second paragraphs of Section 4(a) together. The first paragraph limits California to not more than "four million four hundred thousand acre-feet of the waters apportioned to the lower basin States by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by said compact. . . ." The second paragraph authorizes a compact between Arizona, California and Nevada "which shall provide (1) that of the 7,500,000 acre-feet annually apportioned to the lower basin by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact, there shall be apportioned to the State of Nevada 300,000 acre-feet and to the State of Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet for exclusive beneficial consumptive use in perpetuity, and (2) that the State of Arizona may annually use one-half of the excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River compact. . . ." These two paragraphs are clearly correlative and contemplate allocation of all the available water among the three states. See pages 174-175, infra. Reading the two paragraphs together, it becomes apparent that the pro- |
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 |