AZ vs. CA:25 California Exhibits, Vol. XXV; Nos. 7501-7859

page 7

- 7 - BRIEF AND ARGUMENT. The Proposed Contract Contains Many Provisions in Violation of Specific Sections of the Project Act Designed for the Protection of the States of the Upper Basin and if Executed Would be Void. Since the Project Act subjects all contracts to the Colorado River Compact, it becomes important in determining whether the Arizona contract follows the Act to note the purport of the Compact itself respecting the apportionment of water, and then of those provisions of the Project Act stamping the apportionment upon all of the seven Colorado River states whether all seven ratified the Compact or only, as was the fact, the six. The Compact, after dividing the entire Colorado River Basin into two basins, the Upper and the Lower, and defining each [Article II (f), and (g) of the Compact], apportions to each Basin 7,500,000 acre feet per annum, which is to include the water for existing rights, and allows to the Lower Basin if needed for beneficial consumptive use an additional 1,000,000 acre feet per annum and then to Mexico whatever by treaty with her may be awarded, with the deficiency, if any, occasioned by such award to be borne equally by the two Basins, and finally leaves the remainder, if any, to be apportioned between the two Basins at a future date. [Compact Article III (a), (b), (c) and (f).] The apportionment is from the "River System" and not from any particular part of it or from any particular tributary. The fact that a tributary may be so situated physically that only one of the Basins, or for that matter, only one of the States can use it may be material to that Basin or State as the supply from which that Basin or State would actually be served in part as the result of