OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS Exhibit N0..2O.44 Identification:.AU G 12.1957 Admitted: A.UU..1.8J?57 Extracts From Brief of Complainant in Support of Its Motion for Leave to File Bill to Perpetuate Testimony and in Answer to Briefs Filed in Support of Objections Thereto, Arizona v. California, 292 U. S. 341 (1934). (pp. 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 25, 26) * * * the 1,000,000 acre-feet of water permitted to the lower basin by Article III (b) of the Colorado River Compact * * *. (P. 9) * * * In reality they propose to use in California, from the main stream of the Colorado River, 4,400,000 acre-feet of the water apportioned to the lower basin by Article III (a) of the Colorado River Compact (Bill, p. 17), the entire 1,000,000 acre-feet permitted to the lower basin by Article III(b) (Bill, p. 18) and one-half of the very small surplus remaining- in the river * * *. (P. 9) If the 1,000,000 acre-feet permitted to the lower basin by Article HI(b) of the Compact had been considered to be in the main stream of the Colorado River, then the provisions of Article III(d) should have been that the States of the upper division will not cause the flow at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 85,000,000 acre-feet for any period of 10 consecutive years, * * *. (p. |
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] : California exhibits. |