OCR Text |
Show Jl(b) In addition to the apportionment in paragraph (a), the Lower Basin is hereby given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use of such waters by one million acre-feet per annum. ^.(c) If .--.--.- . as a matter.of international comity, the United States t-t-t of America shall hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the use of any waters of the Colorado River System, such waters shall be supplied first from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in paragraphs (a) and (b); and if such surplus shall prove insufficient for this purpose, then, the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, t-t-t 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). ^(d) The States of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years reckoned in continuing progressive series. .~.-t beginning with the first day of October next succeeding the ratification of this compact. "(e) The States of the Upper Division shall not withhold water, and the States of the Lower Division shall not require the delivery of water, which cannot reasonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses. _l(f) Further equitable apportionment of the beneficial uses of the waters of the Colorado River System unapportioned by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) may be made in the manner provided in paragraph (g) at any time after October first, 1963, if and when either Basin shall have reached its total beneficial consumptive use as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b)." VIII After the Colorado River Compact was signed by representatives of the 6tet«* states and approved by the Federal federal representative on November 24, 1922, the defendant, the State of California, pressed strenuously for the ratification of the Compact by the respective Stete state legislatures and the grant of the needed consent of the Congress of the United States. Arizona objected to the Compact and to the grant of Congressional consent because it deemed that the Compact adversely affected its rights unless it were protected by some determination of the quantum of water from the Colorado River System available under the Compact for use in Arizona and by some limitation on the quantum of saeh water available for use in California. California was desirous of securing the construction of a dam at Black or Boulder Canyon of on the Colorado River to protect against floods, regulate stream flows, and generate hydroelectric power and of securing the construction of a canal whi eh -wo aid- -be located entirely in the United States and which would carry water from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley of California. IX (a) By the Boulder Canyon Project Act (Act of December 21, 1928, 45 Stat. 1057), hereinafter referred to as Project Act, Congress authorized the construction of a dam in the main stream of the Colorado River at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon adequate to create a storage reservoir with a capacity of at least twenty |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde 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, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |