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 226

226 with Section 4(a) applies only to water diverted from Lake Mead and the mainstream below. The argument advanced by the United States and California, that diversions from the mainstream between Lake Mead and Lee Ferry are chargeable under the apportionment, cannot be sustained. As heretofore explained, page 183, supra, diversions from this reach of the River are outside the scope of the Section 4(a) limitation on California. Furthermore, Section 4(a), even if applicable to the mainstream above Lake Mead, cannot limit diversions by Arizona and Nevada because it is solely a limitation on California. Since Arizona and Nevada are the only states geographically in a position to divert water from the mainstream between Lake Mead and Lee Ferry, the water delivery contracts between those states and the United States are the only authority on the basis of which diversions from this reach of the river could be limited. But the Arizona and Nevada contracts do not limit diversions in those states above Lake Mead. This is consistent with Section 5 of the Project Act which authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts only for the delivery of "water in said reservoir," i.e., Lake Mead. Thus the Arizona water delivery contract, in paragraph 7(a), purports to affect only deliveries of water "from storage in Lake Mead," not diversions above Lake Mead. It is true that paragraph 7(d) of the Arizona contract provides that the United States' obligation to deliver water from Lake Mead or the mainstream below "shall be diminished to the extent that consumptive uses now or hereafter existing in Arizona above Lake Mead diminish the flow into Lake Mead. . . ." But even this paragraph does not purport to limit Arizona's diversions from the mainstream above Lake Mead. If, for example, Arizona diverted 3,000,000 acre-feet from this stretch of