OCR Text |
Show 187 ured or estimated by appropriate engineering methods, available for use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican treaty obligation. Section 4(a) as here interpreted does not charge California for evaporation and channel losses on water in the mainstream which occur before the water is diverted for use within the state. California is charged only for the amount of water which she actually diverts and which does not return to the mainstream. Losses of water which occur before diversion are a diminution of the available supply under Section 4(a), not a consumptive use. The United States at one time urged a different conclusion, namely, that Section 4(a) limits California to a part of the water flowing at Lee Ferry.48 It would necessarily follow that this water must be segregated for California at Lee Ferry and traced downstream, through Lake Mead, to California's diversion works. This interpretation measures the Section 4(a) limitation, not to a portion of aggregate consumptive use, but to a portion of a body of water 650 miles upstream from some of California's diversion works, and 355 miles upstream from Hoover Dam, the operation of which the Project Act was designed to regulate. Furthermore, it charges California for evaporation and channel losses which occur before the water is diverted from the mainstream for use in California, despite the statutory language which limits California to a quantity determined by the measurement of "diversions less returns to the river." The argument to justify overriding the statutory language in this manner is that Congress, in limiting California's consumption to a part of "the waters apportioned ... by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact," really meant to say "paragraph (d) of 48The United States, in its Comment on the Draft Report, although it recognizes that this position is fairly implied from its opening brief, says that it altered its position in its reply brief. |
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 |