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

page 9

surplus to which it is entitled, whatever that share may b« under the compact and act. California neglects to point out that the Arizona share of the excess or surplus water unapportioned by the compact also is subject to its availability under the compact and act. I do not understand that California objects to the term "one-half." In fact, I fail to see that California would be prejudiced in anyway if Article 7(a) specifically referred to apportioned water. Its delivery would be "subject to its availability under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act." The proposed contract does not attempt to obligate the United States to deliver any water that cannot be delivered in accordance with the terms of the compact and the act. If it should so attempt, it would be meaningless, because it would not conform to Sections 1, 8(a), and 13(c) of the act which requires subjection of the contract to the terms of the compact and act* Thus, even if Article 7(a) specified apportioned water, It would mean nothing more than that the United States would deliver 2,300,000 acre feet of apportioned water if in fact Arizona is entitled to that amount under the compact and act* California also contends (B - II, pp. 13-21) that the contract confuses certain basic terms, referring specifically to the terms "excess or surplus waters unappartloned by the compact" used In Section 4(a) of the act and "surplus" as used in the compact. The drafters of the contract were meticulous in using in the contract the same terms appearing in Section 4(a) of the act and in the compact* Again, Article 10 of the proposed contract applies with respect to any inference which may be drawn. California also contends (B - IH, IV and V, pp. 22-35) that specific amounts of water should not be granted; that existing contracts with California should be protected) and that the contract should be all inclusive* California's contentions under these points are based upon two assumptions, both of which are erroneoust (1) That California has vested contractual rights to 5,362,000 acre feet of water -which the Secretary is required to deliver} (2) That the Secretary is committed under the proposed contract to deliver 2,800,000 acre feet of water from Lake Mead to Arisona and thus is "overselling" the river. I have already commented upon both of these assumptions. California has a contractual right only to 4,400,000 acre feet of apportioned water and the additional 962,000 acre feet must come from the unapportioned excess or surplus, and California is fully aware of this fact. To adopt California's solution (p» 23) would require the Secretary to recognize that California is entitled first to 5,362,000 acre feet before Ariiona would be entitled to any water from Lake Mead. This obviously would require the Secretary to resolve the fundamental Issue, and the only issue, in California's favor.