OCR Text |
Show THE WESTERN WEB 71 Howard, stated that the right of the Lower Basin to in- crease the use of waters referred to in Three-b was not an apportionment. This California took to be the true significance and intent of the Compact. Arizona had no more right to claim the Gila's water for its own use, in addition to its share of the Lower Basin water, than did any other state of the basin have the right to exclude one of its streams from the provisions of the Compact. He cited the Compact provision which said that "apportionment shall include all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist," and added: "At the time the Compact was written, the rights on the Gila were well established." Howard concluded with the charge that Arizona had built up a vastly exaggerated quantity of water as being available for the project. "If, as we confidently believe will be the case," he said, "these assumptions (of Ari- zona) are found by the court to be in error, the invest- ment of federal money (in the project) will be lost for lack of water." Arvin B. Shaw, Jr., Assistant Attorney-general of California, gave support to Howard's contentions.41 He went deeper into some phases upon which Howard had only touched, making clear and definite the course California advocated. The essence of the controversy, said Shaw, was that there was not enough water in the Colorado River to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of both states. This condition had been growing more acute as years passed, he declared, and he gave the primary reasons as these: "With the prolonged dry cycle of the 'thirties it had been realized that the estimates of water supply of the |