OCR Text |
Show 243 her full contractual allotment. To Arizona would be apportioned a total consumption of 2.9 million acre-feet. But if Article 7(d) of her contract were applied in this situation, the Secretary's delivery obligation of 2.9 million acre-feet would be reduced by the amount of the depletion of the flow into Lake Mead, and Arizona could consume only a total of 2.8 million acre-feet from the mainstream. Thus, although 7.7 million acre-feet were released for consumption within the three states for the year, only 7.6 million acre-feet could be utilized under the statutory and contractual limitations. 100,000 acre-feet of water released for consumption could not be used. The United States suggests that the solution for this dilemma is simply to consider the uses above Lake Mead as part of the total supply of available consumptive uses under the apportionment, and to charge them to Arizona and Nevada. Thus the United States, in the example, would add the 100,000 acre-feet of depletions from the Little Colorado to the total of available consumptive uses from the mainstream, giving a total of 7.8 million acre-feet of available consumptive uses, and 300,000 acre-feet of surplus. The United States then would allocate this total supply among the three states according to the apportionment formula, giving California 4,550,000 acre-feet of consumptive uses, Arizona 2,950,000 (including the 100,000 from the Little Colorado), and Nevada 300,000.93 There are two flaws in this suggestion. First of all, the United States would equate consumptive use measured by diversions less returns, which is the apportionment measurement, with depletion of the flow into Lake Mead, which is the measurement under Article 7(d) of the Arizona contract. But the two measurements are not similar; for example, 100,000 acre-feet of consumptive use on the Little 93Letter of the Solicitor General commenting on the Draft Report, p. 8 |
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 |