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

page 5

(2) A second priority to lands not exceeding 25,000 acre, in the Raw project in California. (3) A third priority to Imperial Irrigation District and Palo Verde Irrigation District for 3,850,000 acre feet, less the amounts needed for beneficial use on lands referred to In (1) and (2). (4) A fourth priority to Uetropolitan Water District for 550,000 acre feet. (5) A fifth priority to Metropolitan Water District for 550,000 acre feet and to the City of San Diego for 112,000 acre feet. (6) A sixth priority to Imperial Irrigation District and Palo Verde Irrigation District for 300,000 acre feet. It will be noted that the first four priorities total 4,400,000 acre feet, the exact amount California agreed by act of its legislature to accept from the water apportioned to the lower basin by Article III (a) of the compact. The tot A of the fifth and sixth priorities is 962,000 acre feet which obviously must come out of the "one-half of any excess or surplus unapportioned by said compact." I have no satisfactory explanation for the reasons itiich prompted Secretary Wilbur to execute contracts for 962,000 acre feet of water in excess of 4,400,000 •ere feet, the amount California is limited to by its act of 1929* It is abundantly clear, however, by the terms of the contracts, and the priority tables which are a part of those contmcts, that the Secretary is required to deliver only 4,400,000 acre feet to California, and that he can deliver the excess 962,000 acre feet only from excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the compact after Arizona and Nevada, have had delivered to them the apportioned water to which they are enti tied under the compact. (4) Statement of Issues between California and Arizona.3/' I have stated the foregoing facts in some detail for one purpose - to crystalize the issues between California and Arizona. Despite all that has been said by both states over a period of more than twenty years, there is now only one issue. The sole issue is whether the 1,000,000 acre feet provided for the lower basin by Article III(b) of the compact is unapportioned. While Arizona claimed for years that the Gila River and its tributaries were not to be included in the apportionment to the lower basin, it now concedes that the Gila and its tributaries are included in the waters apportioned to the lower basin under Articles HI(a) and III(b). It rests its entire case on two propositions: (1) California has limited itself to 4,400,000 acre feet of apportioned water, and (2) IH(b) water is apportioned water. While California claims it has vested contractual rights to 5,362,000 acre feet, It is fully aware that 962,000 acre feet must come out of the unapportioned surplus. If the 1,000,000 acre feet is apportioned water, it must go to Arizona because California has limited Itself to 4,400,000 acre feet and Arizona is the I/1 The history of Arizona's litigation on the Colorado River is reported in Arizona v. California. 283 U. S. 423, 292 U. S. 341, 298 U. S. 558, and ttilted States v. Arizona, 295 U. S. 174.