Laserfiche WebLink
<br />v. California scrupulously avoided a decision with <br /> <br />respect to Upper-Lower Basin issues, it did imply in <br /> <br /> <br />dictum that tributaries of the Colorado River were <br /> <br />comprehended by the 1922 Compact's apportionment scheme. <br />The Court states: <br /> <br />Arizona, because of her particularly strong <br />interest in the Gila, intensely resented the <br />Compact's inclusion of the colorado River <br />tributaries in its allocation scheme and was <br />bitterly hostile to having Arizona tributaries, <br />again particularly the Gila, forced to con- <br />tribute to the Mexican burden. <br /> <br />.. . <br /> <br />Inclusion of the tributaries in the Compact was <br />natural in view of the upper states' strong <br />feeling that the Lower Basin tributaries should <br />be made to share the burden of any obligation <br />to deliver water to Mexico which a future <br />treaty might impose. <br /> <br />Arizona v. california, 373 U.S. at 558, 568. <br /> <br />This <br /> <br />language indicates that the Supreme Court was aware of <br /> <br />the equities and concerns of the Upper Basin. Nonethe- <br /> <br /> <br />less, it must be remembered that this language is dictum <br /> <br /> <br />and does not dispose of the technical argument discussed <br /> <br />above. <br /> <br />a. 1922 Compact Language and Negotiations <br />The most persuasive proof that tributaries <br /> <br />are included under Article III (c) lies in the language <br /> <br /> <br />of the 1922 Compact itself which includes tributaries <br /> <br /> <br />within the definition of the waters apportioned. Article <br /> <br />-20- <br />