OCR Text |
Show question: Is the application of the Project Act limited to the mainstream of the Colorado River or does it apply to the entire River System in the Lower Basin, that is to both mainstream and tributaries? Other important questions are at issue between the two states, such as the interpretation, operative effect and validity of several sections of the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the water delivery contract between the United States and Arizona. At issue also is the effectiveness of Arizona's purported ratification of the Compact and the applicability of principles such as priority of appropriation and equitable apportionment. Nevada, the other state which utilizes water from the mainstream, takes still a third approach. She does not regard the Project Act or the water delivery contracts made by the Secretary of the Interior as controlling rights to water. Rather, she views this action as a traditional suit for an equitable apportionment, in which she claims the right to approximately 500,000 acre-feet of water, based on needs projected to the year 2000. A second major controversy involves claims to tributary water by the states in which diversions from the tributaries occur. The important tributaries involved in this controversy are: (1) The Gila River System, over which New Mexico and Arizona are in conflict; (2) The Little Colorado River System, contested by the same two states; and (3) The Virgin River System, the waters of which are claimed by Utah, Arizona and Nevada. As to all three stream systems, the upstream states pray for "confirmation" of existing uses and an apportionment of water to be reserved for future uses. |
Source |
Original Report: 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 |