Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/..-,'.... <br /> <br />tlJl8i9 <br /> <br />-8- <br /> <br />""':-,, <br />'Y, <br />.., <br /> <br />one-half of Emy excess or surplus "ater unapportioned by said <br />60:.1pact, such uses al11a;;'8 to be subject to the terms of said <br />Compac t. " <br /> <br />History - 1928-1939 <br /> <br />Follmlinc the passoGe of the ooulcer Canyon Project <br /> <br />Act Arizona filed an action in the Supreme Court of the United <br /> <br /> <br />States attc>,c}:inc; the constitutionality of that Act. No allega- <br /> <br /> <br />tions concerning the Haters of the Gila River vere r,;aterial in <br /> <br /> <br />that action, and indeed California had not at that time, and <br /> <br />cUd not until ap;)roximatel;jr 1944, to i'ly lmoHleelge, ma}~e any claim <br /> <br />that beneficia~ consumptive use of 'Jater l.'as not measL1I'able <br /> <br /> <br />by the resultin~; ece1)letion of the [;ain streoD of the Colorado; <br /> <br />so any allegations ~ade in that action or statenents in briefs <br /> <br /> <br />in that action b~T either sio.e Ifere not [wterial to any questions <br /> <br />here presented, and l'ere :TIade vithout any consideration being <br /> <br />[';ivem to the questions 110'/ raisec~ by California as to '!hether or <br />not III(b) l~ater is ap}:>ortionecc Hater to the 101ler basin, ane1 <br />as to j.7hether or not consuoptive use shoulel be measured by depletio: <br />of the main stream of the Colorado River, am1 1Tere not consielered <br />in either connection. It is therefore entirely unfair for <br />California nOli to claim that t11ey reliee1 upon such irJ?elevant, <br />immaterial, and inadvertent statements on either side. <br />The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the <br />Act, and also specific.'\lly ul;helc1 the constitutionality of the <br />provisions of Section 13 (c) and (c1), "hich ;)rovided that all <br /> <br />rights of way across federal lands, and remember, that in the <br />