OCR Text |
Show allocations, under the Master's construction of section 8(b) of the Project Act (DR 139), would be irreversible even by interstate compact. If the Special Master is correct, the compact that the Commissioner recommended could have performed no purpose as to "mainstream" waters controlled by the Secretary because the Secretary had already "forever allocated" these waters. Calif. Ex. 7513-C: Comments of the State of Arizona, November 22, 1946 (FP, pp. 15-18),!/ addressed to Mr. William E. Warne, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, contained in H.R. Doc. No. 419, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (19^7): Arizona spells out her interpretation of the limitation on California in terms of the Compact allocations (PP, p. 15): "The Colorado River compact (art. Ill(a) and (b)) apportions to the lower basin 8-1/2 million acre-feet of water annually in perpetuity. In consideration of the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and its becoming effective, the Legislature of California adopted the California Limitation Act ... as required by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which limits California's use of water of the Colorado River irrevocably and unconditionally, and for the benefit of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, to 4,400,000 acre-feet of the 8-1/2 million acre-feet apportioned to the lower basin, in perpetuity, for use each year by the Colorado River compact." Part of this letter is Calif. Ex. 4501, received for a different and limited purpose (ir. 20,602, 20,608). 111-36 |