OCR Text |
Show to any water in excess of 4,400,000 acre feet from the 8,500,000 acre feet provided for in Articles III(a) and Ill(b). California, while excepting, of course, to the views of the five compact states and Arizona that California was precluded from claiming any amount in excess of the 4,400,000 acre feet from the 8,500,000 acre feet provided for in Articles III(a) and III(b), did concur in Arizona's proposal that a contract be submitted reserving for judicial determination the issues between California and Arizona. This is the so-called 'Phoenix Treaty1 to which California refers on page 10 of its brief." Commenting on California's objections to the contract, Mr. Fix states: "California first contends (B-I, pp. 10-17) that Article 7(b) of the proposed contract by inference defines the maximum of 2,800,000 acre feet referred to in Article 7(a) as Ill(a) water, and thus violates the sense of the so-called !Phoenix Treaty.' "If such an inference could be drawn, which I doubt, I fail to see how California would be prejudiced in any way. Article 10 is purposely designed to prevent Arizona, or any other state, from contending that the proposed contract resolves any issues on the amounts of water which are apportioned or unapportioned by the compact. It expressly provides that the contract shall not impair the right of Arizona and other states and the users of water therein to maintain, prosecute or defend any action respecting, and is without prejudice to, any of the respective contentions of said states and water users as to (l) the intent, effect, meaning and interpretation of the compact and act; (2) what part, if any, of the water used or contracted for by any of them falls within Article III(a) of the compact] (3) what part, if any, is within Article Il(b); and (4) what part, if any, is excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the contract." (Emphasis in original.) 111-67 |