OCR Text |
Show THE BOULDER CANYON PROJECT 31 on anyone and is not suggested as the "will of Congress" (Congressional Record, 70th Congress, 2d Session, page 484 et seq.) ). This suggested Tri-State compact does not apportion any water to California but apportions 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada, and 2,800,000 acre-feet to Arizona and then states that Arizona may have one-half of the excess or surplus waters. No mention is made in either the California limitation laid down in the bill or in the suggested Tri-State compact of the 1,000,000 acre-feet of water mentioned in Article III (b) of the compact. Arizona contends that because this 1,000,000 acre-feet is not mentioned in the Act that the State of Arizona would automatically be given the right to use the entire 1,000,000 acre-feet. In the suggested Tri-State compact in the Act, Arizona is limited to 2,800,000 acre-feet of water from the 7,500,000 acre-feet and is allowed to use one-half of the excess or surplus (exactly the same language as used in connection with California's limitation in the preceding paragraph of the Act). If Arizona's assumption regarding the California limitation is correct, then the use of the same language in the suggested Tri-State compact would in that case prohibit Arizona's use of the 1,000,000 acre-feet of Article III (b) water. From the above it would seem logical to suppose that Congress had no intention of making any effort to even suggest a division of this 1,000,000 acre-feet but that it was to be considered a part of the surplus and excess water and would be open to appropriation by either State. This assumption is further borne out by the debate which took place in the Senate at the time the Act was adopted, it being the evident intention to have the California limitation and the suggested Tri-State compact, if adopted, tie up together and leave all water in the lower basin system over and above the 7,500,000 acre-feet to be considered as surplus or excess water. No other interpretation than this will work out consistently when both paragraphs of the Act are considered. The same assumption must of course be used in interpreting both paragraphs of the Act and if the assumption is made that 1,000,000 acre-feet is not included in the surplus or excess water then one paragraph of the Act, if taken alone, gives California 1,000,000 extra acre-feet and the other paragraph, if taken alone, would give Arizona 1,000,000 extra acre-feet and the two would not be consistent. By considering 1,000,000 extra acre-feet as being a portion of the excess or surplus water and water to which simply a firmer or more certain title would attach, then there is no trouble in making the two clauses of the Act read consistently. Table III gives the division of water that would result from the assumption of interpretation made by California. |
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] : |