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

page 36

- 36 - "As we hold that the grant of authority to construct the dam and reservoir is a valid exercise of Congressional power, that the Boulder Canyon Project Act does not purport to abridge the right of Arizona to make, or permit, additional appropriations of water flowing within the State or on its boundaries, and that there is now no threat by Wilbur, or any of the defendant States, to do any act which will interfere with the enjoyment of any present or future appropriation, we have no occasion to consider other questions which have been argued. The bill is dismissed without prejudice to an application for relief in case the stored water is used in such a way as to interfere with the enjoyment by Arizona, or those claiming under it, of any rights already perfected or with the right of Arizona to make additional legal appropriations and to enjoy the same. " * * * Arizona has, of course, no constitutional right to use, in aid of appropriation, any land of the United States, and it cannot complain of the provision conditioning the use of such public land. * * # " Obviously Arizona was not bound by the Compact as a signatory, but was bound by the public domain provisions referred to in the Court's opinion. Upon that state the Compact itself casts no burdens and from it the State of Arizona was entitled to no benefits. It could not accept a part of the Compact and reject another part of it. The Upper Basin states had agreed with the states of the Lower Basin, who were parties to the Compact, that, limited by the beneficial necessities of the Lower States, they would permit to flow unimpeded down the Colorado River, past Lee Ferry, 75,000,000 acre feet of water during each consecutive ten-year period. The upper states assumed this burden solely upon the consideration to them