| OCR Text |
Show 546 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS from tributaries entirely in Arizona; that these waters enter the Colo- rado River at a point so far south that they could not be used in the United States after they enter the Colorado; and they have in fact been appropriated for use in Arizona; that, therefore, what has in terms been awarded to the lower basin is in practical effect available only to that part of the lower basin constituted by Arizona. Fourth.-It is clear that the meaning of the Compact, considered merely as a contract, can never be material in the contemplated litiga- tion, since Arizona refused to ratify the Compact. Arizona rests her rights wholly upon the Acts of Congress and of California. Arizona claims that California's construction of § 4 (a) of the statute would allow her water which under the Compact has been assigned to Ari- zona, and that a conflict is thus raised between the statute and the Com- pact which the suggested testimony is competent to resolve. But the resolution of this alleged conflict can never be material to any case based on the Compact considered as contract, since Arizona neither has nor claims any contractual right. Fifth.-Nor does Arizona show that Article III (b) of the Compact is relevant to an interpretation of § 4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act upon which she bases her claim of right. It may be true that the Boulder Canyon Project Act leaves in doubt the apportion- ment among the states of the lower basin of the waters to which the lower basin is entitled under Article III (b). But the Act does not purport to apportion among the states of the lower basin the waters to which the lower basin is entitled under the Compact. The Act merely places limits on California's use of waters under Article III (a) and of surplus waters; and it is "such" uses which are "subject to the terms of said compact." There can be no claim that Article III(b) is relevant in defining surplus waters under §4(a) of the Act; for both Arizona and Cali- fornia apparently consider the waters under Article III(b) as ap- portioned.9 It is true that Arizona alleges (not in the bill however but in her brief) that she "hopes to be able to show in the case hereafter to be brought" by evidence of Congressional Committee hearings and other legislative history that the failure in the statute to apportion the 1,000,000 acre-feet of waters was due to an understanding by Con- gress that Article III(b) of the Compact had already assigned these waters to Arizona and that the limitation on California was passed in the light of this understanding. This hope if fulfilled would not make Article III(b) relevant. The allegation is, not that Congress incorporated Article III(b) into the Act; it is that Congress under- stood that Article III(b) had allotted all the waters therein to Arizona. Sixth.-The considerations to which Arizona calls attention do not show that there is any ambiguity in Article III(b) of the Compact. Doubtless, the anticipated physical sources of the waters which com- bine to make the total of 8,500,000 acre-feet are as Arizona contends, but neither Article III (a) nor (b) deal with the waters on the basis of their source. Paragraph (a) apportions waters "from the Colorado River system," i.e., the Colorado and its tributaries, and (b) permits 9 The Secretary of the Interior in his brief seems to be of the opinion that waters under Article III (b) might be surplus waters under § 4 (a) of the Act. |
