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

page 4

a part by Section 14 thereof. In this decision the court the Bculder Dr.m had been allowed fcr navigation only, stating that "the- Boulder Canyon Project Act is an exfimple cf the exertion of that power". ****** III TK2 COLORADO RIVER COMPACT Tho Colorado River Compact, to which Arizona Is not signatory and by which it is net bound, includes in its purported allocations present perfected water rights and both the main strean and tributaries of the Colorado River System. As alleged by the Attorney-General of Arizona in the bill of complaint, pages 6 and 22, Arizona vs. California supra, present used waters and rights thereto in Arizona in 1929 amounted to 3,500,000 acre feet, while the compact, and the supplemental tri-state compact, (Sec. 4, Bculder Canyon Project Act, supra), would limit Arizona in perpetuity to 2,5C0,0C0 acre feet which is already over-consumed and "less than the quantity of water already appropriated in Arizona and would provide for water for future appropriation in said state." Thus the compact would allocate Arizona 700,OCC acre feet less than it now uses, and in dry years by Articles III and VIII thereof would have required Arizona to supply any Mexican water deficiency from its developed reservoirs, projects and cities, bring ruin to the state and its people. The California Limitation Act, Ch. 16, Stats, cf Calif., ll'fc? p. 33, includes the water divisions of both compacts, which would give California dnd Muxiro practically the entire river, or 4,400,0OG acre feet plus cne-half of the surplus water, amounting ^r approximately 14,330,000 acre feet annually (Bill of Complaint, Arizona vs. California, daoided May 25, 1936, SO S. Ct. Reports, Lr.. Editors' Advance Opinions, page 677). By articles III and VIII or the compact, Mexico would receive all surplus water. It would be disastrous for Arizona, being situated in the higher elevations and having cne-half of the irrigable land and 9£'f' of the power to be limited to any permanently bound, stipulated amount, as all surplus waters would then be contracted cr forced r Mexico. Such would prevent the muximun use obtained through re-u'-i, reflcw and repreefpitatien cf water, which is the major portion r;; the entire river and increases the amount in suioeeding years, foi v/hen higher elevations are given preference, the same water will be counted as water appropriations a multiplicity of times and wi.M serve dams and lands belcw. Cn this principle the application of water by the upper basin states within the river system will not deplete the flr-w of the river at the Utah-Arizona line. * * * * * R. C. Stanford Governor of Arizom Washington, April 16, Iy37.