Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />For the next several years, Arizona's Congressional delegation would pursue federal <br />authorization of the CAP. California's delegation remained opposed. On August 13, 1952 Arizona <br />filed suit in the United States Supreme Court to settle the water rights issues. 111 The suit involved <br />the interpretation of Articles III (a) and III (b) of the 1922 Compact and Section4(a) of the 1928 Act. <br /> <br />California took the position that Section 4 (a) apportioned 2.8 maf of Article III (a) water to <br />Arizona and this included all of Arizona's uses including the Gila River. California believed that <br />Arizona was consuming about 2.3 maf/year of Gila River water plus another 1.3 maf/year of other <br />tributary and mainstem uses for a total of3.6 maf/year.ll2 <br /> <br />California argued that 1.0 maf of Article III (b) water was a part of the "excess or surplus <br />waters" within the intent of Section 4 (a). Thus, Arizona was using its full 2.8 maf of III (a) water <br />plus another 800,000 af of surplus water, an unspecified portion of this 800,000 was III (b) water <br />(presumably 500,000 at). Therefore, since Arizona was already consuming more than its likely share <br />of III (a) and (b) water, there was not a safe legal supply of water available for the CAP. <br /> <br />At the time, California had signed contracts for 5.362 maf/year. Under California's reasoning, <br />4.4 maf of this was III (a) water under Section 4 (a) and 962,000 afwas surplus and excess water <br />under Section 4(a) and a portion of which (perhaps 500,000 at) was its III (b) water. California's <br />reasoning put Arizona and California in very similar positions. Both had fully used their III (a) and <br />(b) water with the remaining uses as unapportioned surplus. <br /> <br />Arizona took the position that although it was consuming 2.3 maf/year of Gila River water, <br />it was only depleting 1.1 maf of Colorado River water because uses of the Gila should be measured <br />as depletions at the mouth of the Gila. Arizona also took the position that it was entitled to 2.8 maf <br />ofIII (a) water and all 1.0 mafofIII (b) water. Thus, Arizona had a legal supply of3.8 maf/year, and <br />uses of only 2.4 maf/year (1.1. maf of Gila water and 1.3 maf of mainstem and other tributary water), <br />thus the CAP has a safe legal supply of over 1 million af per year. 1 13 <br /> <br />After the litigation was filed, California developed a defense based on an argument that the <br />III (a) and III (b) apportionments included the tributaries. California then filed to bring the Upper <br />Basin States into the case. The Court denied the motion as to Colorado and Wyoming and allowed <br />New Mexico and Utah in the case, but only to the extent of their Lower Basin tributary interests."4 <br /> <br />In 1960, Special Master Simon Rifkind ruled that Section 4 (a) of the 1928 Act applied "only <br />to the water stored in Lake Mead and flowing in the mainstem below Hoover Dam, despite the fact <br /> <br />111373 U.S. 546. (1952). <br /> <br />112 House Document 419, Comments of the State of California, page 40. <br /> <br />113 Arizona's position evolved considerably between its comment letter on House Document 419 in 1946, its testimony on S.J.R. 145 <br />in 1948 and the filing of the lawsuit in 1952. My summary is based on the testimony of different individuals on pages 283-285 and <br />pages 371-385 of Congressional record of the the hearings on S.J.R. 145. Arizona assumed that it was entitled to alII maf of III (b) <br />water. California assumed that III (b) water would be split 50/50 with Arizona Nevada? Where in the hell is that? <br /> <br />114350 U.S. 114. (1957). <br /> <br />Page -39- <br />