OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX VIII VIII-5 Historic stream flows at Lee Ferry were as follows: Ten-Year Totals of Colorado River Water at Lee Ferry (In Acre-Feet) Stream Flow Stream Flow Ten-Year Period in Acre-Feet Ten-Year Period in Acre-Feet 1896-1905 133,700,000 1923-1932 139,969,500 1897-1906 141,904,000 1924-1933 133,453,600 1898-1907 146,407,000 1925-1934 125,368,900 1899-1908 144,870,000 1926-1935 123,939,900 1900-1909 151,326,000 1927-1936 121,901,700 1901-1910 151,695,000 1928-1937 117,211,700 1902-1911 153,417.000 1929-1938 117,328,400 1903-1912 163,557.000 1930-1939 107,498,700 1904-1913 162,601,000 1931-1940 101,510,200 1905-1914 167,235,800 1932-1941 111,174,700 1906-1915 164,736,200 1933-1942 112,917,800 1907-1916 164,097,000 1934-1943 114,435,400 1908-1917 163,987,100 1935-1944 123,260,400 1909-1918 165,873,700 1936-1945 124,893,700 1910-1919 155,026,100 1937-1946 121,668,100 1911-1920 161,795,800 1938-1947 123,285,600 1912-1921 167,888,600 1939-1948 121,532,800 1913-1922 165,311,000 1940-1949 126,498,100 1914-1923 168,578,300 1941-1950 130.473,700 1915-1924 161,724,600 1942-1951 124,252,400 1916-1925 160,565,300 1943-1952 125,203,000 1917-1926 157,249,000 1944-1953 122,745,000 1918-1927 151,942,800 1945-1954 115,639,600 1919-1928 153,616,500 1946-1955 111,401,200 1920-1929 161,981,500 1947-1956 111,410,500 1921-1930 155,312,900 1948-1957 115.243,100 1922-1931 140,985,600 1949-1958 116.555.900 Article III(b) cannot be stretched so far. Whatever may account for its segregation as a separate provision of the Compact, there is nothing to suggest that III(b) imposes an affirmative duty on the Upper Basin. Rather, it imposes for the benefit of the Upper Basin, a ceiling on Lower Basin appropriations, albeit that the Lower Basin is privileged to have a higher ceiling than the Upper Basin. It is my conclusion that Article III(b) has the same effect as Article III(a), and this conclusion is supported by the reports of the Compact commissioners, who spoke of III (a) and III(b) as apportioning 7,500,000 acre-feet to the Upper Basin and 8,500,000 acre-feet to the Lower Basin. (See Ariz. Exs. 46, 49, 53, 55, 57). "Beneficial consumptive use" is a term used throughout the Compact although, regrettably, it is not defined in Article II or elsewhere in the document. In the early stages of the hearing, Arizona spent a vast amount of effort in seeking to establish the term as a word of art. She now contends that it has no special meaning and never did. California argues that the term is used in the Compact as a word of art and means: "the loss of Colorado River System water in processes useful to man by evaporation, transpiration or diversion out of the drainage basin, or otherwise, whereby such water becomes unavailable for use within the natural drainage basin in the United States, or unavailable for delivery to Mexico in satisfaction of requirements imposed by the Mexican Treaty. The term includes but is not limited to incidental consumption of water such as evaporation and transpiration from water surfaces and banks of irrigation and drainage canals, and on or along seeped areas, when such incidental consumption is associated with beneficial consumptive use of water, even though such incidental consumption is not, in itself, useful."15 "Calif. Brief, Vol. II, p. Al-4. |