OCR Text |
Show fornia (283 U. S. 423),and an additional right to 2,800,000 acre feet under the contract. As pointed out hereafter, the righto of Arizona are more apparent than real, the real objeotion being that subsection (e) aa it stands, without limitation, will provoke criticism. (b) A situation might arise where, although there was enough water aTailable in the reservoir to supply California with 4,400,000 acre feet and Arizona with 2,800,000 acre feet, by including as part of Arizona's 2,800,000 acre feet water elsewhere appropriated by it but meant by the compact to be part of the water defined in Artiole III thereof, to give Arizona 2,800,000 acre feet out of the reserroir might infringe on California's right. This situation can arise in Tlew of the uncertainty as to what water of the Colorado River system is meant by subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Artiole III of the compact and in view of the fact that the Secretary's authority to deliver water from Boulder Reservoir is limited to such deliveries as will not interfere or infringe on the right of California as defined in section 4(a) of the Boulder Canyon Act. California's right there defined is based on the apportionment of waters made in Artiole III of the compact, above referred to. An example of such a situation follows: Water in reservoir ................. 6,000,000 (80 percent of the 7,500,000 necessary to supply Nevada, California and Arizona) California .... 4,400,000 Nevada ........ 300,000 4,700,000________4,700,000 1,300,000 Arizona (perfected rights above reservoir or in tributaries) .............................. 1,500,000 Arizona's contract ................................. 2,800,000 The question immediately presented is whether the Secretary must deliver to California only 80 percent of its right to 4,400,000 acre feet or whether California is entitled to its entire 4,400,000 acre feet, the latter, being on the theory that under the act and compact California's right, based upon all the water apportioned to the lower basin, including 1,500,000 elsewhere appropriated by Arizona, would be infringed if its entire apportionment was not delivered to it. |
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] : |