OCR Text |
Show 25 3(a) of the Colorado River Compact; (]5) what part, If any, Is within Article 3(b) thereof; (4) what part, if any, Is excess or surplus waters, unapportloned by said compact, and (5) vhat limitation on use, rTgLtz of use, and relative priorities, exist as to waters of the Colorado River System, provided, however, that by these reservations there Is no Indent to disturb t'.ie apportionment made by Article 3(a) of the Colorado River .Compact between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin." It can not be more clearly stated, I think, than It is In this present language of this contract. This contract has been gone over by all these engineers and 3awyers of the basin states, by the engineers and lawyers of the Bureau of Reclamation, and we think that it fully and amply protects every interest in that basin. The question of the surplus waters, upon which Mr. Shaw has called attention, is left by this contract to whatever interpretation Is pieced upon the Colorado River Cotnpaat. the Boulder Canyon Projeot Act or the California limitation, It is not defined In thi3 contract what w e mean by surplus waters. It Is waters available for use In Arizona, under the compact, the act and the California limitation, and we take that burden, not Ballfornia. Nothing In here can bind California, |
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] : |