OCR Text |
Show A104 APPENDIX 210 [Telegram] Denver, Colo., February IS, 1923. R. H. McKisick, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, Calif.: Do you concur with me that intent of Commission in framing Colorado River Compact was as follows: That paragraph (b) of Article III means that the lower basin may increase its annual beneficial consumptive use of water 1,000,000 acre-feet and no more? That Article VIII is not intended to authorize, constitute, or result in any apportionment of water to the lower basin beyond that made in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article III? Delph E. Carpenter. [Telegram] Sacramento, Calif., February IS, 1928. Hon. Delph E. Carpenter, State Capitol, Denver, Colo.: Am of opinion that paragraph (b) of Article III permits increase of annual beneficial consumption use of water by lower basin to 8,500,000 acre-feet total or 1,000,000 in excess quantity apportioned each basin in perpetuity by paragraph (a), Article III, and no more. When both paragraphs are read together no other construction tenable. "Per annum" not synonymous with "annually." Article VIII is not intended to authorize, constitute, or result in any apportionment of water to the lower basin beyond that made in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article III, but means that if and when the water passing Lees Ferry as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e), Article III, is impounded within specified storage, claims of lower basin appropriators or users adverse to those of upper basin appropriators or users shall be transferred to and satisfied from the water so stored. R. T. McKisick. [Telegram] Sacramento, Calif., February 15, 1923. Delph E. Carpenter, Denver, Colo.: My interpretation of Articles III and VIII well expressed in McKisick's wire of the thirteenth. W. F. McClure. The following is from letter of February 16, 1923, of Arthur P. Davis, Director United States Reclamation Service, addressed to Clarence C. Stetson, executive secretary, Colorado River Commission, interpreting paragraph (b), Article III and Article VIII, Colorado River compact: "Article VIII provides that all of the rights of the lower basin shall be satisfied from the water apportioned to that basin. There is no indication that any portion of its needs shall be taken from the allotment to the upper basin. The assumption that the lower basin could claim priority for the appropriation of water in a reservoir is an assumption that the compact is invalid, for this is just the contingency which it was designed to meet. The proviso that a storage reservoir of 5,000,000 acre-feet or more shall take care of the perfected rights in |
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] : |