OCR Text |
Show (c) Through the operation of such facilities, California and its water users can take, divert, and consumptively use quantities-a quantity of Colorado River water greatly in excess of 4,-40Q-r&G-9--eK3re-feet- that allocated by-Sections 4(a), 5, and 8(b) of the Project Act and the limitation prescribed by the California Limitation Act. The defendants and each of them claim that California and its water users have the right to take, divert, and -eorretmvpt-ivety-use, by means" of such facilities a minimum of 5,362,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water each year, {ytreh-elalnr and eloims -are-contrary--to-the-€ompaet-,-the- XIII (a) Arizona ratified the Compact on February 24, 1944, and at the same time entered into a contract with the United States for the annual delivery to Arizona and its water users from storage in Lake Mead of "so much water as may be necessary for the beneficial consumptive use for irrigation and domestic uses in Arizona of a maximum of 2,800,000 acre-feet" plus one-half of the surplus unapportioned by the Compact, subject to the availability of such water under the Compact and the Project Act. This delivery obligation applies and is intended to apply only to water from the main stream of the Colorado River. (b) In ratifying the Compact as above set forth, Arizona acted in reliance upon the California Limitation Act and the provisions of--Geetion-4-(ef of the Project Act. Arizona would not have ratified the eompact Compact had it not been for the protection which--wets-«nd-ia- provided to-ifc- by the California Limitation Actr and the Project Act. XIV By contracts dated March 30, 1942 and January 3, 1944, the United States agreed to deliver annually to Nevada from Lake Mead storage "so much water, including all other water waters diverted for use within the State of Nevada in from the Colorado River-System system, as may be necessary to supply the State a total quantity not to exceed" 300,000 acre-feet, subject to the availability of such water under the Compact and the Project Act. The quantity of water to which Nevada is entitled under said contracts is the same as that specifically atofccd for-allocated to Nevada in Section-IV 4_(a) of the Project Act. XV 10 |
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] : |