OCR Text |
Show 134 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS The Special Master added that Congress intended Section 4(a) of the Project Act to apply only to the mainstream, where the works authorized by the Act were constructed. The United States cannot by its operation and control of Hoover Dam regulate the flow of water in the tributaries, nor can it deliver water on any of these streams. This construction of Section 4(a) as applying only to the mainstream of the Colorado River required rejection of California's contention which would total all uses of system water in the Lower Basin (i.e., the mainstream plus tributaries) until the sum of 7.5 maf has been reached, after which she would assign all remaining uses to "excess or surplus water unapportioned by said compact." Since there are no tributaries to the Colorado River in California, California's position would exhaust the 7.5 maf apportionment with the help of tributary uses outside of California and would leave a large supply of mainstream water which California shares as "smplus." California would thus claim 4.4 maf plus 978,000 acre-feet of surplus, or her contract amounts of 5,362,000 maf/yr (Special Master's Report, pages 177 and 178). C.8 California's Limitation Measured at Points of Diversion The Special Master stated that Section 4(a) of the Project Act provides that the limitation (to 4.4 maf out of the first 7.5 maf) on California's use of water from the Colorado River is to be measured in terms not of water but of consumptive use of water, which is defined as diversions from the river less return flow thereto. Consumptive use is to be measured by diversions at each diversion point on the mainstream less returns to the mainstream measured or estimated by appropriate engineering methods, available for use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation. California is not charged for evaporation or channel losses which occur before the water is diverted. Losses which occur before diversion are a diminution of supply not a consumptive use (Special Master's Report, pages 185 through 194). C.9 Interpretation of "Excess" or "Surplus" Waters Although at one point the Special Master declined to define the term "surplus" as used in Article III (a) of the Compact (page 145) he concluded that the words "excess" or "surplus" waters must necessarily mean all consumptive use in the United States in any year from the mainstream in the Lower Basin in excess of 7.5 maf; i.e., once the 7.5 maf of consumptive use were allocated, the surplus accounting would commence and California would be eligible to receive 50 percent of all other allocations. This conclusion rejected Arizona's and Nevada's argument that Section 4(a) of the Project Act bars California from any share of what is described as Article IH(b) water. The Special Master rejected the Compact definition of the phrase "excess or surplus waters unapportioned by said compact," as not applicable in the Project Act. CIO Beneficial Consumptive Use The Special Master noted that "beneficial consumptive use" is not defined in the Compact but stated the term was intended to provide a standard for measuring the amount of water each Basin might appropriate and was intended to give each Basin credit for return flow. He stated that in the Compact, the terms means: "...consumptive use (as opposed to non-consumptive use, e.g., water power) measured by the formula of diversions less return flows, for a beneficial (that is, non-wasteful) purpose." (Special Master's Report, pages 147 and 148.) C.ll Water Delivery Contracts Made by the Secretary of the Interior The Special Master noted that the Secretary has contracted with the States of Arizona and Nevada and that he has also entered into contracts with California users which incorporate the provisions of the California "seven-party agreement" setting forth priorities among the California water users. All of these contracts (except one special use contract between the United States and the Arizona-Edison Company which the Special Master found invalid because it was for a fixed period of years and thus it was not for "permanent service" as |