9367 ‎(3)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

Section 4 of the Act, in the Court's opinion, allocated 2.8
m.a.f. of the 7.5 m.a.f. apportioned to the Lower Basin by
,
,

I
Article III(a) of the Compact to Arizona, 4.4Im.a.f.
California, and 300,000 to Nevada, while allowing ~rizona
Nevada the exclusive use of their tributaries. H~lf of
surplus water, if any, in the mainstream went to ~izona

to

and

the

and

half to California. In the event of a shortage of mainstream
water, the Secretary of Interior was directed tq equitably
i

prorate the deficiency.

I
The Federal Government ~as awarded

i
reserved rights for its reserved lands in the L~wer Basin,
and five Indian reservation received about 1.~ m.a.f. of
reserved rights water to be counted against the apportionment
of the state in which each reservation is situated/.
By excluding the tributaries from the allocation, the
. . !
Court instantaneously vaporized most, ~f not ~ll, of the
i
"surplus" water above the Article III(a) 7.5 m.a.f. appor-

tionment -- of which California would be entitle to a half
share. The Court itself estimated that this particular
determination cost California 1.0 m.a. f. and benefitted

Arizona by the same amount.

373 U. S. at 5 7 - 68 . The

decision also shifted much more of the Lower Bas n's Mexican

Treaty obligation to California than otherwis would have

. occurred.

Arizona v. California has attracted exten ive commen-
tary, much of it critical.28 Besides vindicatin Arizona, 29
it expanded Federal control over interstate wat r rights at

-12-