OCR Text |
Show 296 The treaty obligation has priority over other water rights in the Basin. If the United States, in fulfilling this treaty obligation, divests water rights, compensation may be due. In this connection, however, Article III(c) of the Compact may be significant.87 The question of compensation is not before me because there has been no claim of a taking under the treaty. The United States also claims the right to divert certain quantities of water from the Colorado River for use on the Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge and the proposed Cibola Valley Waterfowl Management Area. The United States urges that these refuges and management areas were or will be established in fulfillment of its treaty obligations under a Convention dated August 16, 1916, between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds88 and a Convention dated February 7, 1936 between the United States and Mexico for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals.89 Congress has enacted legislation to give effect to both of these Conventions.90 The Executive Orders establishing the several "Article III (c) provides: "If, as a matter of international comity, the United States of America shall hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the use of any waters of the Colorado River System, such waters shall be supplied first from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in paragraphs (a) and (b); and if such surplus shall prove insufficient for this purpose, then, the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and whenever necessary the States of the Upper Division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half of the deficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d)." 8839 Stat. 1702 (1916), U. S. Ex. 2601. 8950 Stat. 1311 (1937), U. S. Ex. 2605. 9040 Stat. 755 (1918), U. S. Ex. 2602; 45 Stat. 1222 (1929), U. S. Ex. 2603; 49 Stat. 1555 (1936), U. S. Ex. 2606. |
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 |