Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />excluded from the determination of whether surplus water <br /> <br />exists. The critical language of Article III(c) is: <br /> <br />If...the United States...shall...recognize... <br />in...Mexico any right to the use of waters of <br />the Colorado River system.. osuch waters shall <br />be supplied first from the waters which are <br />surplus over and above the aaareaate of the <br />quantities specified in paraaraphs (a) and (b); <br />and if such surplus shall prove insufficient <br />...then, the burden of such deficiencies shall <br />be equally borne by the Upper Basin and the <br />Lower Basin... <br /> <br />(Emphasis added). The Lower Basin contends that Article <br /> <br /> <br />III (c) defines surplus water as the excess after the <br /> <br /> <br />aggregate of uses apportioned by Article III (a) and (b) <br /> <br /> <br />is reached. Since Article 1I1(a) and (b) apportion a <br /> <br />total of 16 m.a.f. the Lower Basin contends that there <br /> <br />is a surplus only when the aggregate of uses in the Upper <br /> <br />and Lower Basin combined exceed 16 m.a.f. Since a supply <br /> <br /> <br />of 16 m.a.f. does not now exist, nor will it in the <br /> <br />foreseeable future, the Upper Basin and Lower Basin must <br /> <br />equally bear the Mexican Treaty obligation. <br /> <br /> <br />The Lower Basin can be expected to argue that this <br /> <br /> <br />literal and technical reading of Article 1II(c) is <br /> <br />consistent with the decision in Arizona v. California 373 <br /> <br />U.S. 546 (1963), in which the United States Supreme Court <br /> <br /> <br />held that congress, in the Boulder Canyon Act, excluded <br /> <br />the Lower Basin tributaries from its statutory apportion- <br />ment among the Lower Basin states. The Court's decision <br /> <br />-18- <br />