| OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX J 295 The water contracts now under attack by Arizona disposed of 5,362,000 acre-feet per annum, equal to 4,400,000 acre-feet of water available under Article in (a) of the Colorado River Compact, and about 1,000,000 of "excess or surplus" available in accord with the Limitation Act. Litigation, 1930-1936 Arizona thereupon brought suit in the United States Supreme Court to declare the Compact and Project Act un- constitutional and to enjoin construction of Hoover Dam. She alleged just about the same interpretation of the Compact and Limitation Act that California then, and now, asserts, and Arizona opposed these documents because they did have these meanings. The United States and all six states moved to dismiss, and the Court did so, in 1931. It refused to construe the Compact, and held that the dam was constitutionally authorized. The government commenced construction on Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal, and the Metropolitan Water District commenced construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct. SECOND ARIZONA SUIT, 1934 Arizona sued a second time, in 1934, this time to perpetuate the testimony of the negotiators of the Colorado River Com- pact in support of a new interpretation of the document, to the effect that whereas Article in (b) gave the Lower Basin, as such, the right to "increase its use" by one million acre-feet per annum, the negotiators meant it for Arizona alone. The Court rejected the interpretation Arizona offered and said that the proposed testimony could never become relevant. It refused permission to file the bill. THIRD ARIZONA SUIT, 1935 In 1935 Arizona sued a third time, asking the Court to ig- nore the Colorado River Compact and the Statutory Compact, and to make an equitable apportionment of the waters of the Colorado River system. All of the water contracts upon which we now rely, aggregating 5,362,000 acre-feet per annum, had long since been made. Arizona pleaded these contracts and conceded California's right to use even more water under the |
