Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001461 <br /> <br />Are there legal theories sufficient to support an action <br />to relieve, at least in part, the Upper Basin from an <br />obligation of Article rrI(d) not to deplete the flow of the <br />River below 75 m.a.f. at Lee's Ferry for any ten year <br />period? At least three principal theories warrant <br />consideration -- establishment of the equality of the 1922 <br />apportionment, rescission or reformation of the Compact <br />under principles of contract law, and construction of the <br />Boulder Canyon Project Act as a statutory apportionment of <br />water between the Upper and Lower Basins. <br />1. Construe the Compact according to its plain <br />language and intent. <br />Article III might simply be construed to subordinate the <br />Paragraph (d) non-depletion duty to the paramount equal 7.5 <br />m.a.f. per annum apportionment as between the two basins <br />provided by Paragraph (a). A ratified compact is a statute, <br />see Intake Water Co. v. Yellowstone River Compact Comm., <br />supra, and the initial guide to the meaning of a statute is <br />its own language. See March v. United states, 506 F.2d 1306, <br />1313 (D.C. cir. 1974). The very first paragraph of Article <br />III apportions "in perpetuity" to the Upper Basin, as well as <br />the Lower, lithe exclusive beneficial consumptive use of <br />7,500,000 acre feet of water per annum." By stating this <br />right so prominently and emphatically, Article III seems to <br />accord it primacy over all subsequent provisions, including <br />Paragraph (d). Moreover, for reasons of history described <br /> <br />-36- <br />