AZ vs. CA:25 California Exhibits, Vol. XXV; Nos. 7501-7859

page 29

- 29 - expectation that future appropriations of water made by her shall not be subject to the Compact, whereas, under the protective sections hereinbefore set forth, she can exempt neither herself, nor any waters whatsoever, of the River System from the operation of the Compact. Referring again to Arizona's water rights already existing and to be created hereafter, it is true that if she does not apply for contract water she will not be bound by the Compact as a signatory and ratifying state would be. But it is to be said, independently of the general question of whether the Federal Government or the State is the validating creating source of water rights in the arid west, that the Government, in the exercise of its authority under the Federal Constitution (Article IV, Sec. Ill), to dispose of and regulate the uses of its public lands, undoubtedly has the power to confine the use thereof for transportation and storage of water, to the storage and transportation of such quantities as the Congress may determine. Arizona v. California, et al., 283 U. S. 423. Since by protective Sections 13 (c) and 13 (d) of the Project Act the Congress has limited the quantity to such as when added to waters of already existing water rights shall not exceed the Basin apportionment, and since Arizona or any other Colorado River State because of the great lahd holding of the Government, cannot get water without crossing public domain, it follows that, though Arizona should never apply to the Secretary for contract water, she is, in a very practical way, limited and bound by the Colorado River Compact, for the simple reason that when she or her citizens, come to ask the Government for a right of way across the public domain there would have to be inserted in the instrument conferring it, under Sections 13 (c) and 13 (d), a clause of subordination to the Compact. In this manner, not by force of signing and ratifying the Compact, but rather by force of the