OCR Text |
Show -9- should flow down to Lee's Ferry 75,000,000 acre feet in each ten year period. Subdivision B of Article III of the Compact allowed the Lower Basin to increase its consumptive use by 1,000,000 acre feet. The purpose of this provision was made for Arizona's benefit, because by the terms of the compact the Gila River and its tributaries over Arizona's objection were included in the Colorado River System, and as the normal flow of that river and its tributaries was already appropriated and put to a beneficial use, this 1,000,000 acre feet was intended to take care of the Gila River. But the Compact itself did not so specify, although all representatives present agreed that such was the purpose of the 1,000,000 acre feet set up under Sub-division B, of Article III of the Compact. These two amounts of water set up in A and B of Article III of the Compact allocated to the Lower Basin, are spoken of in the Compact, the Dam Act and in all negotiations as "apportioned waters." The Compact further provided that whenever there was storage in the Lower Basin equal to 5,000,000 acre feet, then all vested rights on the main river in the Lower Basin would be cared for by such storage. It will be well to remember that the vested rights on the main river in the Lower Basin are the Yuma Project, the Imperial Valley land and some other California lands. In no way could storage on the main stream take care of any vested rights on the Gila or its tributaries. And this fact was known to every member of the Conference, and it was the reason that it allowed the Lower Basin the extra 1,000,000 acre feet, so that the Gila might be counted in and yet be cared for. After the Compact was drawn up several of the States ratified it, Arizona alone refused. The reasons for Arizona's refusal to ratify the Seven State Compact were: |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde 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, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |