OCR Text |
Show 178 1. Art. Ill (a) of the Compact apportioned 7,500,-000 acre-feet of uses to the Lower Basin; 2. Congress limited California to not more than 4,400,000 acre-feet of uses from this apportionment; 3. California is using all of the 4,400,000 acre-feet; 4. Thus, 3,100,000 acre-feet of uses remain for other Lower Basin states out of the III (a) apportionment; 5. The 3,100,000 acre-feet of uses are exhausted in other states, as follows: (1) Gila River ................. 1,750,000 (2) Other tributaries............ 200,000 (3) Mainstream, other than Cali- fornia ................... 1,150,000 Total .............. 3,100,000; 6. Any water remaining in the mainstream in excess of 5,550,000 acre-feet (4,400,000 for California and 1,150,00 for others) is surplus, of which California may take as much as one-half. Under this hypothesis California argues that she is privileged to take as surplus up to 978,000 acre-feet37 from the mainstream in addition to taking 4,400,000 acre-feet, also from the mainstream, out of what she interprets to be the Article III (a) System apportionment. The effect of this argument is to give California 5,378,000 acre-feet out of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet available from the mainstream, leaving only 2,122,000 acre-feet for Arizona and Nevada. 37California arrives at this figure by dividing her contract amount of 5,362,000 acre-feet between 4,400,000 acre-feet of III (a) water and 962,000 acre-feet of surplus and by adding to the latter 16,000 acre-feet of other uses. See note 71, page 208, infra. |
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 |