AZ vs. CA:12 California Exhibits, Vol. XII; Nos. 1350-1383; 1400-1446; 1501-1518; 1601-1603; 1701-1703

page 10

-10- First, Arizona objected to the inclusion of the Gila, and, second, while the prior appropriation doctrine would thereby be destroyed between the two basins by the allocation of waters to each of them, yet it would remain in full force and effect as between California and Arizona, and that while the Upper Basin States had escaped the danger which they had feared by California appropriating a great amount of water through the all-American canal that it intended to build, yet the same danger would still confront Arizona. Those were the reasons why Arizona would not ratify the Seven States Compact. She knew that she could not compete in wealth or in influence with California, and that California could take the water allocated to the Lower Basin by prior right of appropriation and thereby destroy Arizona's chances of ever irrigating any considerable lands from the waters of the main Colorado River. (8) The Tri-State Compact What is commonly called the Tri-State Compact is a proposed agreement between three states of the Lower Basin, that is, Arizona, California, and Nevada, to divide among such three state the waters allocated to the Lower Basin by the Seven States Compact. Other matters were sought to be covered by such a Tri-State Compact. Arizon's stand has been that before the Seven States Compact should be ratified, there should be a Tri-State Compact between California, Arizona and Nevada, allocating to each in perpetuity the waters that they should be entitled to. This compact Arizona has diligently sought to have made between the three states. One of the