OCR Text |
Show 314 4.4 feet of such use, he has forever allocated yy to California plus 50% of any excess each year up to a total annual consumption in California of 5,362,000 acre-feet. Finally, of .3 such 7.5 million acre-feet, he has forever allocated yv to Nevada. However,_untiljL state is prepared to apply to beneficial use all of its apportioned water, ithas no c^3^ iQTcgm-J>jaint ifthe water within its allocation is consumed elsewhere. Thus if, in any one year, water apportioned for consumptive use in a state will not be consumed in that state, whether for the reason that there are no delivery contracts outstanding for the full amount of the state's apportionment, or that users cannot apply all of such water to beneficial uses, or for any other reason, nothing herein shall_be_ construed as prohibiting die Secretary of the Interior from releasing such apportioned but unused water (faring such year for consumpjtiye_use,.in_the. other states. No rights to the recurrent use of such water shall accrue by reason of the use thereof.* California and Nevada have suggested that it would be useful for the Court to provide for a permanent commission or commissioner to administer the decree. I do not regard this as necessary. In view of the control of the mainstream vested in the Secretary of the Interior, he will in effect ad-, decree. 4For comparable provisions see Colorado River Compact, Article III(e); Boulder Canyon Project Act, Section 4(a), second paragraph, subdivision 5. |
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 |