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

page 60

6o the Colorado River compact." This proposal implies that all controversies concerning the waters of the Colorado River can and should be resolved promptly by the collective action of all seven affected States. As previously pointed out, the first necessary step toward carrying out this proposal involves the apportionments heretofore made by the Colorado River compact to the upper basin and to the lower basin, recognizing that further apportionments between the two basins, over and above those heretofore made, cannot be undertaken under the compact until after 1963. Colorado recognizes the necessity and desirability of the States of the Colorado River Basin determining their respective rights to deplete the flow of the Colorado River consistent with the Colorado River compact. That all of the States of the upper basin accept this recommendation of the report and assume that responsibility is evidenced by the fact that since the report was issued these States have initiated compact negotiations, for two principal purposes, namely, (1) to determine relative rights of the respective States of the upper basin in the beneficial consumptive use of the 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum heretofore apportioned in perpetuity from the Colorado River to the upper basin by article III (a) of the Colorado River compact; and (2) to determine the relative obligations of the States of the upper division imposed by article III (d) of the Colorado River compact, not to cause the flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of 10 consecutive water-years. These negotiations were initiated under the compact clause of the Federal Constitution. However, Colorado does not concur in the implied and often repeated assertion that controversies concerning the waters of the Colorado River can and should be resolved by joint action of all seven of the Colorado River Basin States' nor does the State concede that an adjustment of all controversies in both the upper and lower basins must be settled before major developments of the water resources of the river may proceed. There are controversial matters peculiar to each basin which are unrelated to those in the other, the adjustment of which will permit development to go forward in one basin although unresolved questions remain in the other basin. It is pertinent to point out that after initiation of compact negotiations by the States of the upper basin it was found necessary to appoint an engineering committee to review the water supply and depletion estimates and other factual information contained in the report, and to supply data not included in the report which is recognized to be necessary or desirable for the negotiation and consummation of a workable compact. It is here suggested that this fact indicates the need for THE COLORADO RIVER a modification of the report and the inclusion in it of data and information which it does not now contain. In Colorado There May Be No Allocations to Specific Projects It is asserted in the report that all the States have not made final allocations of water among projects within their borders. This implies and amounts to a proposal that final allocations to individual projects are necessary and must be made in advance of their construction. Colorado points out that no official or agency of the State is authorized to comply with or carry out such a proposal. No such authority could be granted by the legislature to any official under the constitution of the State. The right to divert and use water in Colorado is based upon prior appropriation for beneficial purposes. Any change of principle or method would require the amending of the State constitution. Under section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 the Secretary of the Interior is required to appropriate and divert water for reclamation projects in conformity with the State laws regulating appropriation, use, and distribution of water supplies. And it must be noted that when new projects are constructed, the rights of existing appropriators mus't be recognized and protected in order that such new projects may not adversely affect established water uses. Colorado must, therefore, request that, on the basis of the existing laws of the State respecting water rights, that all statements contained in the report which directly or indirectly imply that final allocation to individual projects is necessary and must be made in advance of further project construction by the Bureau of Reclamation or any other public or private agency, be eliminated. Controversies Over Contracts for Lake Mead Water Should Be Resolved by the Secretary of the Interior The report asserts that "there is not complete agreement among the States regarding the interpretation of the compact and its associated documents-the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the California Self-Limitation Act, and the several contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and individual States or agencies within the States for the delivery of water from Lake Mead." Its authors say "this report makes no attempt to interpret the Colorado River compact or any other acts or contracts relating to the allocation of Colorado River water among the States and among projects within the States." It is the view of Colorado that the long-standing controversies among the States in the main result from these contracts made by the Secretary of the Interior with California and agencies thereof. It is likewise the position of Colorado that the amount of water which may be delivered under these contracts must be in strict