OCR Text |
Show 224 the several California users. So far as appears, California users have not requested contracts for additional water out of surplus, probably for the reason that they have never been in a position to utilize the full amount of their present allotments. This explains why California's share of surplus has not yet been fully contracted for. In years in which "surplus" exceeds twice 962,000 acre-feet,80 the Secretary is not required by his existing contracts with California users to deliver to them out of such surplus more than the 962,000 acre-feet. New contracts can, of course, change this situation. Since the Secretary has intentionally bound himself to a contractual apportionment substantially (although not precisely) along the lines suggested by Congress as fair and equitable in the two paragraphs of Section 4(a) of the Project Act. that section has been used as a guide for interpreting and denning the contractual allocation. Applying this gloss to the contracts, I interpret them as establishing the following water delivery scheme: The Secretary, in his discretion, decides how much water is to be released from mainstream reservoirs in any particular period. The amount available for consumption in the United States in any one year will be the amount so released less the amount necessary to satisfy higher priorities. The contracts do not limit the Secretary's discretion; they operate only upon mainstream water which is available for consumption in the United States. They require that this water be apportioned as follows: of the first 7.5 million acre-feet of consumptive use in one year, 4.4 for use in California, 2.8 in Arizona and .3 in Nevada; of the remaining consumptive uses during that year, 50% for use in California and 50% in Arizona, subject to the possibility that Arizona's share 85The 5,362,000 acre-feet for which California users have contracted must be satisfied as follows: 4,400,000 acre-feet out of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet; and 962,000 acre-feet out of surplus. |
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 |