OCR Text |
Show 144 native modes of adjusting the dispute. As between Lower Basin states "the waters of the Colorado River System [are] not covered by the terms" of the Compact. (Colorado River Compact, Art. VI(a); see Ariz. Exs. 46, 49.) Lastly, Arizona argues that Article HI (a) relates to the mainstream only because III (a) and III(d) are correlative, III(d) being III (a) multiplied by ten, and Article III(d) is clearly a mainstream measurement. This argument is unacceptable. Since Article III (a) imposes a limit upon appropriation whereas III (d) deals with supply at Lee Ferry, an interpretation which makes these two provisions correlative one to another is inadmissible. Since a substantial quantity of water is lost through reservoir evaporation and channel losses as it flows from Lee Ferry, the point where the III(d) obligation is measured, to the diversion points downstream from Hoover Dam, where most of the appropriations are made, 7,500,000 acre-feet of water at Lee Ferry will supply a considerably smaller amount of appropriations below Hoover Dam. Moreover, III (a) extends to appropriations on Lower Basin tributaries as well as the mainstream. Such appropriations cannot possibly have any relation to the quantitative measurement of the flow of water at Lee Ferry. The Compact does affect the supply of water available to the Lower Basin. Two provisions of the Compact relate to supply, Article III(c) and Article III(d). Article III(d) presents no questions of interpretation. Under it, the Upper Division states may "not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years, reckoned in progressive series beginning with the first day of October . . . ." With the storage provided by Lake Mead, and barring a drought unprecedented in the recorded history of the River, the Lower Basin has, under the guarantee of the Compact, available for use at Hoover Dam a minimum of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per year, less transit losses |
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 |