AZ vs. CA:13 California Exhibits, Vol. XIII; Nos. 1800-1842; 1901-1906; 2000-2044

page 2

__2__ * * * otherwise the permission contained in Article III(b) becomes meaningless and valueless for the reason that the upper basin might, without violating any terms of the Compact, prevent its use by withholding the water * * *. (P. 11) * * * the framers of the Compact intended that the 1,000,000 acre-feet per annum permitted to the lower basin by Article IH(b) was not in the main stream at all, but was in the tributaries existing in the lower basin * * *. (P. 11) Under the construction of that document (the Limitation Act) as contended for by defendant Harold L. Ickes, and the California defendants herein, California could use from the main stream of the Colorado River (1) 4,400,000 acre-feet of the 7,500,000 acre-feet apportioned to the lower basin by Article III (a) of the Compact, and (2) 1,000,000 acre-feet permitted to the lower basin by the terms of Article III(b) of the Colorado River Compact, and (3) one-half of the excess or surplus waters, if any, unapportioned by the Colorado River Compact * * *. (P. 13) * * * Thus California would seek to get not only the 1,000,000 acre-feet permitted by Article III(b) of the Compact ? * *. (P. 14) Further, it must be pointed out that the Boulder Canyon Project Act nowhere seeks to deal with the water permitted to the lower basin by Article III(b) of the Compact and in the limitation imposed by that Act upon the State of California, makes no mention of the water permitted by Article III (b) of the Compact * * *. (P. 14) * * * it was never intended either by Congress or the California Legislature that any person in California