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 237

237 Secretary has not considered it necessary to compile such a complicated list in order to deliver water pursuant to his contracts. Furthermore, as noted at pages 233-234, supra, the contracts adopt a pro rata system of distribution of surplus. •> 6. Deductions for Uses above Lake Mead Invalid. The contractual allocation scheme detailed above, which has been deduced from the Secretary's water delivery contracts, does not take into account the provisions of Article 7(d) of the Arizona contract and Article 5 (a) of the amended Nevada contract which reduce the Secretary's obligation to deliver water from Lake Mead for use in those states to the extent that consumption of water in those states diminishes the flow of water into Lake Mead.88 These provisions are in violation of the Project Act; they are unenforceable. They are contrary to the command of Section 5 that "contracts respecting water for irrigation and domestic uses shall be for permanent service . . .," they violate Section 18, which directs that state law shall govern intrastate water rights and priorities, and they result in an allocation of mainstream water totally out of harmony with the limitation on California contained in Section 4(a). These contract provisions require that deliveries of water from the mainstream to users in Arizona and Nevada be reduced as depletions in those states above Lake Mead increase, regardless of the supply of water in Lake Mead. For example, assume that annual deliveries from Lake 88Article 7(d) of the Arizona contract clearly states that the Secretary's delivery obligation is reduced to the extent that consumption diminishes the flow into Lake Mead. Article 5 (a) of the Nevada contract is worded differently, however, and could be interpreted as reducing the delivery obligation to Nevada by the total amount of tributary diversions in that state regardless of the effect on the flow into Lake Mead. Since I have concluded that these provisions are unenforceable, it is unnecessary to differentiate between the two versions, and I have treated Article 7(d) and Article 5 (a) as synonymous for purposes of the following discussion.