OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD feet is the amount so estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation for the original larger project. The sponsors further state and are convinced that there is rightfully more than that amount of water in firm supply now available in the Colorado River for the completed Gila project without building any further dams or storage, and without depriving any State in the Colorado Basin of any of its rightful share of firm water. The truth or fallacy of this claim appears to hinge upon, first, physical facts concerning either the historical flow or the virgin flow of the Colorado River, and second, upon the interpretation of certain legal instruments, such as the Santa Fe Compact of 1922, the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, the California Statute of Limitations of 1929, and certain water contracts drawn by the Secretary of the Interior to furnish water out of Lake Mead. This joining of issues is chiefly by men from Arizona and from California, the Arizona witnesses making one interpretation; the California witnesses making another interpretation of these above-mentioned legal documents. The California witnesses in general agree that the Santa Fe Compact-supplemented by later enactments-is the basic law of the Colorado River Basin, and declare that they are willing to abide by it. The Arizona witnesses take the same stand. The Arizona witnesses point out that in return for the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act by Congress in 1928 that California agreed to limit the amount of water she could claim out of the Colorado River to 4,400,000 acre-feet of water annually in firm supply, plus one-half of the surplus. The Arizona witnesses quote that California statute, "the State of California as of the date of such proclamation agrees irrevocably and unconditionally with the United States and for the benefit of the States of Arizona," etc., and claim that that statute of limitations is a covenant irrevocable. The California witnesses say they regarded their statute of limitation as a covenant which they propose to observe, but their interpretation of it differs from the interpretation by Arizona witnesses. IS ARTICLE III (b) WATER "APPORTIONED WATER" OR "SURPLUS WATER?" The crux of the matter comes down to the question: "What is the legal character of the million acre-feet of water mentioned in article III (b) of the Santa Fe Compact?" The Arizona witnesses contend that that million acre-feet of water in article III (b), like the iy2 million acre-feet in article III (a), is "apportioned water"-apportioned to the States of the lower basin. The Arizona witnesses contend that,, thus considered, article III (a) and article III (b) of the compact apportion 8M2 million acre-feet of water to the lower basin in firm supply, and there can be no question about its use in the lower basin if it physically exists in the river. If that be true, and California has limited her own use of apportioned water to 4,400,000 acre-feet-the Arizona witnesses further contend-and Nevada is satisfied with 300,000 acre-feet (which is all she ever claimed), then the remainder, which is 3,800,000 acre-feet, is obviously Arizona's water, since it cannot legally be put any place else in the United States within the lower basin. However, of the 3,800,-000 acre-feet for Arizona, only 2,800,000 acre-feet is to come from the main stem of the Colorado River. OPPOSING WITNESSES DISAGREE ON III (B) WATER The California witnesses do not agree with this analysis, contending that article III (b) furnishes a million acre-feet to the lower basin, which is not "apportioned water," but should be regarded as "surplus water" within the terms of the compact. If it is "surplus water," under the provisions of the compact, it is to be divided between Arizona and California, each State having half. This dispute is over claim to 500,000 acre-feet |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |