OCR Text |
Show 208 fornia. Rather, the Secretary of the Interior has contracted with a number of agencies within the State, incorporating in each such contract the so-called Seven-party Agreement among all the users which governs their priorities inter sese to California's share of water from the Colorado River.70 In her answer to the bill of complaint, California alleges that the Secretary's contracts with the California users call for the delivery of sufficient water to satisfy 5,362,000 acre-feet of consumptive use per year.71 No party contests this allegation.72 Since all of the California contracts contain the proviso that the Secretary's water delivery obligation is "subject to the availability thereof for use in California under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act," the amount of water legally available to California depends upon the interpretation of Section 4(a) of the Project Act. California can in no event demand more water than her contracts permit, and she may receive less under Section 4(a) of the Project Act. No other questions are raised by the parties regarding the California contracts, and they need not be further considered. 70The Seven-party Agreement is incorporated in Article (6) of the Palo Verde contract, printed in Appendix 8, page 423. "California's Answer to the Bill of Complaint, pp. 1, 33. The California Proposed Findings of Fact barely mention the California contracts, but it may be inferred from California's Proposed Conclusion of Law 7A:201, Table 2 at Note 4, that California adheres to the allegation of the answer that the contracts call for a total of 5,362,000 acre-feet of water. California claims, in addition, 16,000 acre-feet of "water for existing projects . . . for which no water right, either under state law appropriations or federal water delivery contracts, was proved but which is chargeable to the state" and for United States wildlife refuges. "Ariz. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 122: "Those contracts call for delivery for use in California of an aggregate of 5,362,000 acre-feet of water." See also United States Proposed Conclusion of Law No. 1.4. |
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 |