OCR Text |
Show 000 acre-feet apportioned to the lower basin by Article III(a) of the Colorado River Compact. (P. 17) The Act of the Legislature of the State of California follows exactly, as to the limitation imposed upon use of waters of the Colorado River system within the State of California, the language of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and makes no reference whatsoever to Article III(b) of the Colorado River Compact. The omissions, ambiguities, and conflicting provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the Act of the Legislature of the State of California, as hereinabove pointed out, can be explained, resolved, and reconciled in no other way, except that they were drawn in accordance with and in order to give effect to the understanding, agreement, purpose, and intent of the framers of the Colorado River Compact, of which Arizona desires the testimony to be perpetuated in this proceeding * * *. (P. 19) * * * defendant Harold L. Ickes and the California defendants assert that the 962,000 acre-feet relate to and include the water permitted to the lower basin by Article III(b) * * *. (P. 25) * * * Arizona insists that it [the 962,000 acre-feet] can include no part of the water permitted to it by Article III(b) of the Compact, none of which is present in the main stream of the Colorado River at all, and all of which is in the tributaries of the State of Arizona for use within the State of Arizona. (P. 26) |
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. |