| OCR Text |
Show THE WESTERN WEB 21 Article Three, Paragraph b, of the Compact stated: In addition to the apportionment of Paragraph a, the Lower Basin is hereby given the right to increase its bene- ficial consumptive use of the Colorado River waters by one million acre-feet per annum. This was known as "Three-B Water," and it was this million acre-feet that was in controversy. That is a great deal of water. It would not only cover a million acres of land one foot deep, but it is sufficient for the irrigation of about a quarter of a million acres of arid land, or it would supply all the needs of about five million city dwellers. Arizona refused to ratify the basic Colorado River Compact, but the six other states of the basin did ratify. Under the agreement, that was a sufficient number of ratifications to put the Compact into operation, pro- vided, however, that California also enacted a so-called "Limitation Act." The California state legislature quickly passed the required Limitation Act. It said: California agrees to limit its use of Colorado River water to 4,400,000 acre-feet of the waters apportioned to the Lower Basin by Paragraph a, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters Thus, California, cooperating with the Compact makers, agreed to take 4,400,000 acre-feet of Three-A Water, and not more than one-half of the excess or surplus waters apportioned by the Compact. California maintained from the beginning that the term "excess or surplus" included all Three-B Waters. The question to be settled was: Does California share equally in this million acre-feet of Three-B Water? California said yes. Arizona said no. |
