OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 543 And it was further agreed that a supplemental compact between the States, California, Nevada and Arizona should be adopted and that such supplemental compact should so provide. "The Arizona delegation stated that if it were agreed by all the representatives of the several States and of the United States that said million acre-feet should be for the exclusive benefit of the State of Arizona to provide compensation to Arizona on account of the inclusion of the waters of the Gila River and its tributaries in said compact, they would accept said compact, otherwise they would refuse to accept said compact. It was thereupon agreed bv all representa- tives of all the States and of the United States, participating in said negotiations and conferences, that the waters apportioned by Arti- cle III (b) of said compact were for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of the State of Arizona, and it was further agreed that a supplemental compact between the States of California, Nevada and Arizona should be adopted and that such supplemental compact should so provide. Thereupon said compact was signed by the representatives of the several States and of the United States." Third.-In this suit Arizona asserts rights under the Boulder Can- yon Project Act of 1928, not under the Colorado River Compact, which she has refused to ratify. That Act approved the Colorado River Compact subject to certain limitations and conditions, the ap- proval to become effective upon the ratification of the Compact, as so modified, by the legislatures of California and at least five of the six other states. It was so ratified. Arizona claims that § 4 (a) of that Act imposing limitations on the use of water by California was intended for her benefit; that §4 (a) embodies by reference Article III (b), among others, of the Compact for the purpose of defining the limi- tation and that the proper interpretation of Article III (b) will be, therefore, essential to a determination of Arizona's rights under the statute; that, read in the light of other sections of the Compact, Article III (b) is ambiguous; and that the testimony sought to be perpetuated will be material and admissible in removing the am- biguity. The elaborate argument in support of these contentions ap- pears to be, in substance, as follows : 1. Colorado River Compact, apportions the water of the Colorado River System between the upper and the lower basin. By Article II it defines the terms used: "(a) The term 'Colorado River System' means that portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the United States of America." "(b) The term 'Colorado River Basin' means all of the drainage area of the Colorado River system and all other territory within the United States of America to which the waters of the Colorado River system shall be 'beneficially applied." "(g) The term 'Lower Basin' means those parts of the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system below Lee Ferry and also all parts of said States located without the drainage area of the Colorado River system which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from the system below Lee Ferry." |