OCR Text |
Show 251 Mr. Howard. The Secretary of the Interior and the State of Arizona have entered into a contract which in a way is a substitute already, a three-State compact.98 The purpose in 1945 was, of course, to convince Congress that it would be a breach of the California contracts to allocate any Lake Mead water to Mexico; hence, the reliance on the contract as a grant. In the posture of this litigation, however, California rejects the contracts as a source of right, since the contracts clearly relate to mainstream water and not to tributary water. A further example of inconsistency is found in the testimony of Attorney General Kenny of California. His opposition to the Mexican Treaty was based on the proposition that California would be deprived of some of its 4.4 million acre-feet. General Kenny stated: Senator Wiley. Then is the nub of this argument that you are presenting (1) that you are getting the water, 4,400,000 acre-feet; (2) that you feel, if this treaty should become the law of the land, your rights will be prejudiced and that you will not get that water ? Mr. Kenny. Definitely." In oral argument in this case, on the other hand, California advanced the contention that the apportionment formula adopted in this Report errs in that it permits, in times of shortage, some of California's 4.4 million acre-feet to go to Mexico, whereas, according to California, Congress intended in the Project Act that water to be forever free from the Mexican Treaty burden. Since Congress ratified the Mexican Treaty despite General Kenny's admonition that it subjected California's 4.4 to diminution in order to a8Id., at 886. *., at 379 |
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 |