OCR Text |
Show "The crux of the matter comes down to the question: 'What is the legal character of the million acre-feet of water mentioned in article Ill(b) of the Santa Pe Compact?1 The Arizona witnesses contend that that million acre-feet of water in article Ill(b), like the 7-1/2 million acre-feet in article Ill(a), is 'apportioned water1- apportioned to the States of the lower basin. The Arizona witnesses contend that, thus considered, article Ill(a) and article III(b) of the compact apportion 8-1/2 million acre-feet of water to the lower basin in firm supply, and there can be no question about its use in the lower basin if it physically exists in the river. If that be true, and California has limited her own use of apportioned water to 4,400,000 acre-feet-the Arizona witnesses further contend--and Nevada is satisfied with 300,000 acre-feet (which is all she ever claimed), then the remainder, which is 3,800,000 acre-feet is obviously Arizona's water, since it cannot legally be put any place else in the United States within the lower basin. However, of the 3*800,000 acre-feet for Arizona, only 2,800,000 acre-feet is to come from the main stem of the Colorado River. "Opposing Witnesses Disagree on III(B) Water "The California witnesses do not agree with this analysis, contending that article Ill(b) furnishes a million acre-feet to the lower basin, which is not 'apportioned water, ' but should be regarded as 'surplus waterT within the terms of the compact. If it is 'surplus water,1 under the provisions of the compact, it is to be divided between Arizona and California, each State having half. This dispute is over claim to 500,000 acre-feet of water annually. So the real nub of the controversy is, Does half of the million acre-feet of water mentioned in article Ill(b) of the compact rightfully and legally belong to California, or does all of it rightfully and legally belong by reason of California's Limitation Act to Arizona? fl±7 92 Cong. Rec. A4830. III-116 |