WSP11373

• File Number: 8042.A
• Description: Section D General Studies - Other States
• State: AZ
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 11/17/1960
• Author: AZ Interstate Stream
• Title: Thirteenth Annual Report of the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission - July 1 1959 to June 30 1960
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

0018un

the Master upheld Arizona's contention, California wanted Ari-
zona and Nevada to take evaporation losses out of water due
them.)

2. Definition of the term "beneficial consumptive use" as
employed in the Santa Fe Compact to measure a state's use of
mainstream water.

The Master adopted Arizona's definition of the term as
meaning "diversion less returns to the river." California had
contended for "consumptive use at site of use" as a definition.

3. Tributaries.

The Master held that a state's use of water from a tributarv
of the Colorado bears no relationship to its mainstream alloca-
tion, Thus he rejected California's argument that our uses of
water from the Gila River and, to 1\ lesser degree, from the
Little Colorado River, should be deducted from whatever main-
stream water is due us. If California had had its way, our
2,800,OOO-acre-feet allocation would be reduced by whatever
water we take from the Gila and the Little Colorado.

4. The Gila River dispute between Arizona and New
Mexico.

This was, in effect, a separate lawsuit although tried as part
of the overall case. New Mexico claimed. from the Gila River
and its tributaI'ies within that state, enough water fOJ' all present
uses plus enough water to satisfy certain future requirements.
regardless of priority of appropriation. Arizona resisted this
claim to the degree deemed necessary to protect users of Gila
water in the Safford and Duncan areas and the San Carlos
Proj ect.

Judge Rifkind concluded that the dispute was not governed
by any federal legislation or compact. as in the case of the main-
stream, Therefore, he held, it should be decided on the basis
of the doctrine of equitable apportionment.

He acknowledged that older priorities for llse of Gila waters
lay in Arizona, But he said he would not :lpply strictly the rule
of prior appropriation lest it affect existing uses in New Mexico
and harm that state's economy. "Furthermore," said the Mas-
ter. "the Gila is a wasting stream and water which is used bene-
ficially in New Mexico would be lost en route to users in Arizonll..
In addition, it seems that New Mexico uses only a relatively
small portion of the water she contributes to the Gila River
System. I am satisfied, therefore, that a reduction of present
New Mexico uses is not warranted."

The effect. of the Master's finding,;, then. is to allow New
Mexico enough water from the Gila for present uses but none
for future expansion. (Specified amounts for specified areas
will be found in the text of the recomm~nded decree.)

5. Claims by the federal government.

The Master. in effect, allowed the government all it was
claiming from the mainstream in behalf of the Indi,ms. which