OCR Text |
Show -25- statement on the subject of water as made by the Arizona commissioners. The governors at Denver went on further and stated, in addition: 2. To Arizona, in addition to water apportioned in subdivision (b) [of paragraph 1 above], 1,000,000 acre-feet of water to be supplied from the tributaries of the Colorado River flowing in said State, and to be diverted from said tributaries before the same empty into the main stream. Said 1,000,000 acre-feet shall not be subject to diminution by reason of any treaty with the United States of Mexico, except in such proportion as the said 1,000,000 acre-feet shall bear to the entire apportionment in (1) and (2) of 8,500,000 acre-feet.1 3. As to all water of the tributaries of the Colorado River emptying into the river below Lees Ferry not apportioned in paragraph (2) each of the States of the lower basin shall have the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of such tributaries within its boundaries before the same empty into the main stream, provided, the apportionment of the waters of such tributaries situated in more than one State shall be left to adjudication or apportionment between said States in such manner as may be determined upon by the States affected thereby. That last provision referred particularly to the Virgin River, which was partly in Utah, partly in Arizona, and partly in Nevada, the only important tributary that is a stream of interstate character. 4. The several foregoing apportionments to include all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist, including water for Indian lands in each of said States. 5. Arizona and California each may divert and use one-half of the unapportioned waters of the main Colorado River flowing below Lees Ferry, subject to future equitable apportionment between the said States after the year 1963, and on the specific condition that the use of said waters between the States of the lower basin shall be without prejudice to the rights of the States of the upper basin to further apportionment of water as provided by the Colorado River compact. Article III (b) waters were not dealt with here. Compare supra, pp. 2-3. |
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] : California exhibits. |