OCR Text |
Show 242 tive use of mainstream water plus a further apportionment of surplus water in the mainstream. Consumption of water diverted from the Lower Basin tributaries is irrelevant to the Section 4(a) apportionment. The Secretary's water delivery contracts, except for the provisions in question, substantially adopt and effectuate the congressional apportionment. Except for these provisions, the several water delivery contracts provide for the disposition of all the 7,500,000 acre-feet and all surplus. See pages 222-224, supra. But Articles 7(d) and 5 (a) defeat the mainstream allocation, otherwise completely provided for in the contracts, by introducing System, i.e., tributary, considerations in a mainstream apportionment. To enforce these provisions would distort the mainstream apportionment and leave some mainstream water undisposed of. The resulting incomplete allocation may be demonstrated by the following example: Assume that the Secretary decided to release in a particular year enough mainstream water to permit consumption of 7.7 million acre-feet in the three states. Assume, also, that Arizona's diversions from the Little Colorado River depleted the flow into Lake Mead by .1 million acre-feet. Under the interstate apportionment established by the Section 4(a) limitation on California and the delivery contracts with Arizona and Nevada, of the first 7.5 million acre-feet of mainstream consumption, Arizona would be allocated 2.8 million acre-feet, California 4.4, and Nevada .3. Of the .2 million acre-feet constituting surplus, Arizona and California would each be allocated one-half. Thus to California would be apportioned a total consumption of 4.5 million acre-feet for the year in question. She could not consume more than this amount because of the Section 4(a) limitation, which is based on mainstream considerations only. To Nevada would be apportioned a total consumption of .3 million acre-feet, and she could not utilize more than this since that constitutes |
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 |