OCR Text |
Show second quoted phrase of the Project Act. The Project Act and the Limitation Act constitute a statutory compact and adopt the Compact method of accounting. California took exceptions to the Master's "Contractual Allocation Scheme" and his failure to accept the principles of interstate priorities and equitable apportionments. California has always adhered to the principle that all consumptive uses in the Lower Basin whether based on State law or water contracts with the Secretary are governed by the principles of equitable apportionment as developed by the Supreme Court. California includes the priority principle and the principle that established uses will be protected as against new uses. The Project Act did not create a Federal allocation scheme for the States, and the Secretary has no power by contract to impair valid existing rights acquired prior to the date of the Project Act whether such water was at that time fully put to use or not. The term "perfected rights" as used in Section 6 of the Project Act is not limited to the quantities actually used prior to June 25, 1929, but extends to quantities of water "capable of use from the natural flow by works constructed or in the process of construction with due diligence." California further claims that if Arizona is found to have ratified the Colorado River Compact that the effective date is February 24, 1944. Arizona's contract mention of "present perfected rights" protects California uses which were acquired, or were being acquired, under principles of western water law. Contracts for water delivery are controlled by Section 8 of the 1902 Reclamation Act and Sections 14 and 18 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and thus priority, not parity, applies. Arizona and Nevada contracts are "administrative devices" establishing ceilings on the quantities available for contract with users in those States. Natural flow rights are to be added to and "not included within any rights in stored waters, howsoever allocated." California excepted to the Master's conclusion that the determination of the dependable supply was not necessary in this case. As a part to this exception, California excepted to the Master's conclusion that Article III (a) of the Compact constitutes a "ceiling on appropriations, allowing the use of water temporarily available in the lower basin because of the present lack of upper basin development" and the further conclusion that the upper basin by present indications will not use "anywhere near" 6.5 million acre-feet, or above 4.8 million acre-feet. California maintains that permanent dependable Lower Basin supply must be determined in order to (1) have a justiciable controversy (2) appraise the effect of the proposed apportionment (3) 31 |