OCR Text |
Show 307 tive use or more, her perfected rights are deemed by Section 4(a) to be satisfied. That section limits California to 4,400,000 acre-feet of consumptive use plus half of surplus, which shall include "all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist." I construe this language to mean that California's consumptive use may not exceed the specified amount, whatever her "present perfected rights" might have been in 1929. In short, Section 4(a) limits the operation of Section 6 in the case of California. No such statutory provision limits the protection extended by Section 6 to Arizona and Nevada. It is clear from the evidence, however, that if water is made available to satisfy an aggregate of 7,500,000 acre-feet of consumptive use in one year, the Arizona and Nevada apportionments will substantially exceed the amount of "present perfected rights" in the respective states. In the event that sufficient water is not made available to satisfy an aggregate consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet in the United States in one year, Section 6 may come into play. California will not be allotted as much as 4.4 million acre-feet of consumptive use and can, therefore, rely on the protection afforded by Section 6 until she receives sufficient water to satisfy present perfected rights, up to the maximum of 4.4 million acre-feet fixed by Section 4(a). Since it is possible for these circumstances to occur, it becomes necessary to interpret the phrase "perfected rights" in Section 6. Neither the Compact nor the Project Act defines "p_er-fecteiLrjghts." It seems clear, however, that the term was not used in either of these enactments to refer to notices of appropriation which had not yet become the foundation of a going economy-mere paper filings on the River. The use of the term "perfected rights" rather than the more familiar "appropriative rights"_suggests that Congress intended to limit the protection of Section 6 to rights of a more sub- |
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 |