Laserfiche WebLink
<br />occurred in the face of the express language of section <br />4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon Act which required that <br />California limit itself to 4.4 m. a. f. "of the waters <br />apportioned to the lower basin states by paragraph (a) <br />of Article III of the Colorado River Compact, plus not <br />more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters <br />unapportioned by said compact." Article III (a) of the <br />1922 Compact apportioned water from the "Colorado River <br />System" which is defined in Article II (a) as "that <br />portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries within <br />the United states." (Emphasis added). However, the <br />Supreme Court expressly stated that it was not deciding <br />any issue of interpretation of the 1922 compact, and that <br />the controversy was to be disposed of solely on the <br />theory that Congress had made a statutory apportionment <br />between the states of the Lower Basin: Arizona, <br />California, and Nevada. <br />2. Reasons for Inclusion <br />scrutiny of the Compact, the Boulder canyon <br />Act, and even Arizona's past conduct leads to the con- <br />clusion that the Lower Basin tributaries are to be <br />included in an Article III (a) determination of surplus. <br />First, however, before analyzing these factors, it must <br />also be noted that although the Supreme Court in Arizona <br /> <br />-19- <br />