OCR Text |
Show 166 agreed with them to an acceptable division of mainstream water such as that suggested in the second paragraph of Section 4(a), they could, simply by delaying ratification for six months, bring the limitation into effect. Seven states did not ratify the Colorado River Compact within six months of the date of enactment of the Project Act. California, in compliance with the statutory condition, passed its Limitation Act on March 4,1929.2T The California Limitation Act recites that it was enacted in order to comply with Section 4(a) of the Project Act, and it limits California's diversions of Colorado River water in language that is substantially identical to the Project Act limitation. The limitation on California's use of Colorado River water, contained in the Project Act and the California Limitation Act, and incorporated into the Secretary's water delivery contracts with California users, is valid and binding on California. California argues that if it be held that Arizona effectively ratified the Compact, then California should be absolved of the limitation upon her. California's argument is based upon the premise that her act of self-limitation was exacted of her only in the event of a six-state compact, not of a seven-state compact. However, the natural reading of the language of the statute does not support her contention. The condition stated is the failure of seven states to ratify within six months. That contingency occurred. Nor is there much to be said for California's alternative argument that Arizona did not effectively ratify the Compact. This is founded on the premise that the Compact, having been proclaimed as a six-state compact, could not fifteen years later become a seven-state compact. The premise is unsound. It was not proclaimed as a six-state compact. It never became a six-state compact. Article XI 27Calif. Stats, and Amendments to the Codes, ch. 16, pp. 38-39 (1929). For the complete text of the Limitation Act, see Appendix 4. |
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 |