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

page 2

reduction on account of evaporation, reservoir and river losses, as ¦ay be required to render this contract In conformity with said Compact and said Act." "(f) Arizona recognises the right of the United States and the State of Nevada to contract for the delivery ... of 300,000 acre-feet of the water apportioned to the lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact, and in addition thereto to make contract i'or like use of l/Z5 of any excess or surplus waters available in the lower Basin and unapportioned by the Colorado River Coapact ..." "(g) Arizona recognizes the rights of lew Mexico end Utah to equitable shares of the water apportioned by the Colorado River Coapact to the lower Basin and also water unapportioned by such Compact, and nothing contained in this contract shall prejudice such rights." Colorado River Compact 3. Article III of the Colorado River Compact reads, in pert, as follows! "(a) There ie hereby apportioned from the Colorado River system In perpetuity to the upper basin unri to the lower b&sin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 aere-feet of wat=r per annum, which shall include all wat»r necessary for the supply of any rlghtt which may now exist. "(b) In addition to the apportionment in paragrt-ph (a), the lower basin is hereby given the right to increr.se its beneficial consumptive use of such waters by 1,000,000 acre-feet per annum." "(c) If, as a matter of mternsitionfcl comity, the United States of Americ shell hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the use of any waters of the Colorado River Systpa, such waters shtll be supplied first from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in p&rsigraphs (a) and (b)j . . . ." "(d) The states of the upper division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted belo* hn aggregate of 75,00',000 acre-feet lor any period of 10 consecutive years reckoned in continuing progressive series beginning with the first dsy of October next succeeding the ratification of this Compact." />. The Compact is written in quite general lurigutge ana there i;- no universal agreement on the meaning oi some o£ tte t^nnt. One point ct issue concerns Ill(b) water. Arizona contends that the allocation of 1,OUO,QOO acre-feet was made to the Lower Basin in recognition of Arizona1 e existing use of the waters ol tne Gila River. On the other hand, California cleims a right to part of III('o) water. Various other disinterested parties who