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 240

240 to generate new causes of uncertainty. Congress undoubtedly realized that unless Hoover Dam and Lake Mead were operated so as to make deliveries of water as dependable as possible it would be extremely difficult to develop new projects, existing projects might fail, and the effective utilization of the River would be seriously impaired. But the provisions charging Arizona and Nevada for depletions above Lake Mead create this very uncertainty of supply that Hoover Dam and the Section 5 command were explicitly designed to avoid. For under these provisions, deliveries to projects below Lake Mead would be reduced on the basis of fluctuating factors which neither the Secretary nor the downstream users can control.92 It is true that deliveries to users in a particular state below Lake Mead are reduced, under Articles 7(d) and 5(a), only as consumption within that state on the System above Lake Mead increases, and thus, in a sense, the total amount of water used within the state remains relatively constant. But Section 5 clearly requires that individual users be assured permanent service, regardless of overall state allocations. Furthermore, Section 5 deals with the mainstream only and thus it must have been intended to require permanent service in regard to mainstream deliveries regardless of consumption on the tributaries. These provisions also violate Section 18 of the Project Act. That section, set forth and discussed at pages 216-218, supra, provides in effect that state law shall govern water rights and priorities intrastate. The example given above illustrates the violation of Section 18. The example assumed 92It_may_be that in some instances a user below Lake Mead could obtain an injunctionJimHer state law" prohibiting consumption of water aboveXake Mead because of the collateral effect on deliveries to that .user. "However, nothing has been brought to my attention to indicate lhat this would be true in all, or even some, cases. Besides, Section 5 requires that the Secretary's contracts tnemselves must ensure permanent service.