Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />CD1835 <br /> <br />-14_ <br /> <br />of the 7,500,000 acre-feet released at Lee Ferry <br />to the ImTer basin IDayb e considered as I surplus I <br />because of Arizoll<\ uaters uhich are 2vnilable to <br />the lower basin alone. Congress apparently expected <br />that 8 complete ap:~')ortionment of the \laters Clr.Jong <br />the States of the louer basin 'lToulc1 be made by the <br />sub_compe.ct '.Thich it authorized Arizona, California <br />rmd lIevada to ual~e, If Arizona 1 s rights rcre in doubt <br />it is, ~n larGe part, because she has not entered into <br />the Colorado River COlD}J8ct or into the sug~eeted sub- <br />cODpact." <br /> <br />It is heJld that t:lere ',ms no ambi '3uit~, and that it '.!as <br /> <br />81)port:.oneell'ulter to the LOFer Basin b;,' the expre?s lrm::;uase <br /> <br /> <br />of the Compact and the Boulder Canyoh Project Act. <br /> <br /> <br />It is therefore clear that it is not any part of the <br /> <br />Unal)portioned or surplus '.rater, and that California by ac101:ting <br /> <br /> <br />her Self- ;",i,lit:',tlon Act has forever excludecl herself from <br /> <br />ClaiminG any part of it. <br /> <br />During that ;)eriod 1933-18::35 I !,las nlso request eel for a <br /> <br /> <br />legal opinion as to '"hetller or not Arizona cOl~lcl E18intain an <br /> <br />action in the Suprer,le Court of the United States see]cinc; an <br /> <br />i <br />< <br />j <br />j <br />" <br /> <br />equl table n'-'l')ortiom;ent of the Haters aVElil"ble to the LOrrer <br /> <br />Basin, I Gave it D.S my opinion that Arizona conIc', not Co so <br /> <br />because she '.Ie.s not making use of any vatere upon 1Thlch the <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Jurisdiction of the Court misht rest. In oth~r lVords, Arizona <br /> <br /> <br />coulcl not 1J11ege any injllI'~r or threatened injury to any existing <br /> <br />":. <br /> <br />use of 'Tater; ano. hence there 'ms no justici2.1Jle controvers~', <br /> <br />. <br />I therefore ['(1vised ag.cinst 2nd CUl', not pe.rticipate in the case <br />, ' <br /> <br />. "~ <br /> <br />of Arizona~. California re}Jorted in 298 U, S. 558, In that <br /> <br />,) <br />,', <br /> <br />cc~se Cnlifornia, objectecl to the filinG of tile bill on t'Ii'O <br />