AZ vs. CA:13 California Exhibits, Vol. XIII; Nos. 1800-1842; 1901-1906; 2000-2044

page 6

-6- its apportionment of beneficial consumptive use out of available water, irrespective of the source of such waters in the river. IV It remains to be determined if subparagraph 11 (a) of the form of contract tendered by the State of Arizona is violative of these provisions of the act and compact and, therefore, beyond the authority of the Secretary so to contract. To test the effect of this paragraph, it is necessary to assume a case where the available water from all sources in a given year is less than 7,500,000 acre-feet, after deducting whatever might be available as accumulated storage under provisions of a contract purporting to create such storage right. Thus, if the water available in a given year was 7,500,000 acre-feet, of which 1,000,000 acre-feet were claimed as reserved storage under a provision like subparagraph 11 (a), only 6,500,000 acre-feet would be available for apportionment that year for beneficial consumptive use, the inability to release all available water being solely by reason of the storage clause in the contract supposed. To this extent, the contract would interfere with the apportionment to California of the specified beneficial consumptive use for that year. I conclude, therefore, that subparagraph 11 (a) of the proposed contract is violative of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the Colorado River Compact, and that the Secretary is without authority to approve its inclusion in the contract. Approved, August 30, 1934: Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary.