OCR Text |
Show 179 Nothing in the words or the legislative history of Section 4(a) lends countenance to this hypothesis. The second paragraph of Section 4(a) contemplates that Arizona could receive 2,800,000 acre-feet of the 7,500,000 acre-feet in addition to the exclusive use of the Gila River within her boundaries.38 Under the California hypothesis, over one-half of Arizona's 2,800,000 acre-feet is used up by appropriations on the Gila. After the prolonged dispute between Arizona and California, which was uniformly described as a difference over whether California should be limited to 4,200,000 or 38The second paragraph of Section 4(a) authorizes a compact among Arizona, California and Nevada which would allocate 2,800,000 acre-feet plus one half of surplus to Arizona. It then further provides that "the State of Arizona shall have the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of the Gila River and its tributaries within the boundaries of said State...." This language must mean that Arizona may consume Gila River water in addition to the 2,800,000 plus half of surplus. California's explanation of the language, that it ensures Arizona exclusive use of Gila River water as part of her 2,800,000 plus half of surplus, makes it redundant since that would necessarily be the result even without this language. This is so because Gila River water flowing in Arizona can, as a matter of geography, be consumed only in that state, California or Mexico. California had no diversion works as of 1928 capable of diverting Gila River water for use in that state nor were there any contemplated at that time. Indeed, California has not used Gila River water since 1928, and she has no facilities for the diversion of that water today. Also another clause in the second paragraph of section 4(a), clause (4), specifically provides that Gila River water shall never be used to satisfy the Mexican treaty. Thus, even without the above quoted language, Gila River water could be consumed only in Arizona, and the language, if it is to be given some effect, must mean that Arizona may consume this water in addition to the 2,800,000 plus half of surplus allocated to it from the mainstream. This necessary interpretation of the second paragraph of section 4(a) was recognized by Senators Johnson and Hayden during the debates in the Senate. Senator Johnson was interpreting the second paragraph when he stated that: "When Arizona says that she has but 2,800,000 acre-feet of water, to that must be added the Gila River with its 3,500,000 acre-feet___" And Senator Hayden agreed with Senator Johnson that Arizona's use of Gila River water would be in addition to its allocation of mainstream water under the language of the second paragraph of section 4(a). 70 Cong. Rec. 466, Calif. Legis. Hist. p. 175. |
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 |