OCR Text |
Show 180 4,600,000 out of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water, it would be remarkable indeed to discover at this late date that Congress intended to give California up to 5,378,000 acre-feet of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water and to assure Arizona of only 1,822,000 acre-feet.39 The one claim that can be made for the California contention is that it makes the congressional reference to the III (a) apportionment consistent with the Compact meaning, but at the expense of inconsistency between the first and second paragraphs of Section 4(a) of the Project Act itself, and in the face of every expression of intent made by any Senator who had anything to do with the legislation.40 Accordingly, the California hypothesis is rejected. California advances one more argument to support her contention that Section 4(a) should be interpreted as applying to both the mainstream and the tributaries. She strenuously urges ''the contractual character of the California Limitation Act.'"41 On the premise that Section 4(a) of the Project Act is "an offer to the Legislature of California of a statutory compact,"42 California states that "the issue must be what the California Legislature understood from the words used [in Section 4(a)]."4S California's conclusion then follows: "In enacting it [the Limitation Act], the California Legislature accepted a communicated offer plain on its face."44 3!/Congress contemplated that the other 300,000 acre-feet would go to Nevada. 40In addition, California's position on Article HI (a) is incompatible with her position on III(b). If the Project Act reference to III (a) is to be read literally, in a Compact sense, then "surplus" and "unapportioned" must be read literally, and California would be excluded from III(b) uses, since they are apportioned by the Compact. See pages 147, 150-151, supra, and 197-200, injra. 41 Calif. Comment on Draft Report, p. 2. *Hd. at p. 5. i3Id. at p. 40. 4iId. at p. 5. |
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 |