State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial 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 : the United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners : State of Utah and State of New Mexico, impleaded defendants : report / Simon H. Rifkind, special master

page 183

183 for a dam that would regulate the river and eliminate the threat of disastrous floods and for a canal wholly within the United States, free from control by a foreign power. The water to a portion of which California is limited by Section 4(a) is that part of the mainstream which consists of Lake Mead and the River below. Water consumed from the mainstream above Lake Mead is not relevant in computing the limit that Section 4(a) places on California's use of mainstream water. The Project Act was concerned primarily with the construction and operation of Hoover Dam, and most of its provisions relate to this basic purpose. Hoover Dam gives the United States physical control over the water stored in Lake Mead and over the use of substantially all of the water in the mainstream below, but it does not enable the United States physically to control the use of water from the mainstream above Lake Mead. Consistently with this physical fact, the provisions of the Project Act do not purport to govern the mainstream above Lake Mead. Section 5 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to contract for the delivery of water stored in Lake Mead at points which may be agreed upon along the Lake and the mainstream below; that section specifically applies only to water in Lake Mead and to water released therefrom. Also Sections 6 and 8 of the Project Act apply in terms to water controlled by the United States by means of Hoover Dam. Section 4(a) must be interpreted within the context just described. Consistent with the other provisions of the Project Act, I interpret Section 4(a) as applying only to Lake Mead and the mainstream below. Water in the mainstream above Lake Mead is treated precisely like water in the tributaries above Lake Mead; it is a potential source of supply and is not within the scope of the Project Act unless and until it finds its way into Lake Mead.45* 45aConsistent with this interpretation of Section 4(a), the water delivery contracts of the Secretary of the Interior effectuate an apportionment of water in Lake Mead and the mainstream below. See pp. 225-228, infra.