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

page 444

444 REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT So there is no question that it is apportioned water, and the Supreme Court of the United States has, it seems to me, in clear and unmistakable language, held that it was apportioned water. So then, if it is apportioned water-and I am clear that it is-then California has precluded herself from ever claiming any part of it because she has limited herself* to 4,400,000 acre-feet plus half of the surplus. And, therefore, whether or not you figure it as an over-all apportionment of 8y2 million feet to the lower basin, which it clearly is by this language, it leaves 3,800,000 acre-feet for use in Arizona. The difficulty and the confusion, it seems to me, comes in this factr that the Secretary of the Interior by this act was authorized to make contracts for the delivery of water from Lake Mead and everybody was precluded from claiming water except by contract with the Secretary. Well, now, of the 8y2 million feet apportioned to the lower basin, 7y2 million feet of that comes down from the upper basin and is called III (a) water, but, actually, when you get down to figure the ultimate right to water here, it does not make any difference whether you specify that that is III (a) to the exclusion of III (b); the result is the same. The water coming down from Lake Mead is the only place where the Secretary has authority to deliver water, except by act of Congress. All of these contracts relate to water in Lake Mead, where the supply is limited by the Colorado compact to 7y2 million feet. Therefore, in the Arizona contract, that is why we say the Secretary agrees to deliver and we to take 2,800,000 feet. The Secretary has not any jurisdiction over the Gila River. Mr. Fernandez. Then I am wrong in my assumption and interpretation of the compact that it would result in more water? Mr. Carson. I think you are right in your assumption, if there should be any more than 1,000,000 acre-feet of the Gila River depletion; that might reduce our right from the main stream and the difference would oe a surplus from which they could take a part.