OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX J 305 ARIZONA TITLE 4. Where did Arizona get title to 2,800,000 acre-feet of in (a) water? Not on the face of the Compact. Not by agree- ment with California. And why all on the main stream? Ari- zona says it is very simple: Article in (d) guarantees the Lower Basin 75,000,000 acre-feet at Lee's Ferry; this is ten times 7,500,000; Article in (a) apportions 7,500,000 per year to the Lower Basin; therefore the one is the other; therefore all in (a) water is found flowing at Lee's Ferry. Next, she says, California is limited to 4,400,000 acre-feet of in (a) water by the Limitation Act; Arizona concedes 300,000 to Nevada; this leaves 2,800,000 acre-feet of in (a) water on the mainstream to Arizona. q.e.d. What is wrong with this? Everything. Where is the water for Mexico? The 75,000,000 acre-feet guaranteed under m (d) is a supply; Article in (a) is an apportionment of consumptive use. Doesn't the Lower Basin get any credit for return flow? If it does, the diversion of 75,000,000 acre-feet on the main stream won't result in the consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet per annum. Moreover, if the old rights on the Gila are chargeable to Article in (a), obviously the Lower Basin cannot claim that much in (a) water twice, once on the Gila and again at Lee's Ferry, even though the uses on the Gila are valued on the depletion theory at only 1,000,000 acre- feet per annum. If valued at the true quantity consumed, the discrepancy is greater. On either measurement, the Upper division ought to get credit for part of the 75,000,000 acre-feet as a delivery of excess or surplus waters available in part for satisfaction of the Mexican burden. But on Arizona's argument, the Upper division, under Article in (c), must automatically add enough water to meet half the Mexican Treaty burden, because the 75,000,000 delivered under Article in (d) contains no excess or surplus; it is all apportioned under Article in (a). Arizona vs. Upper Basin. This seems to indicate some degree of conflict between Arizona and the Upper Basin as to the burden of the Mexican Water Treaty. It would be painful to see such a disagreement develop among the allies who put over that Treaty, but we are prepared to sustain that discom- fort as philosophically as possible. |