Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />Section 4 of the Act, in the Court's opinion, allocated 2.8 <br />m. a. f . of the 7.5 m.a. f. apportioned to the Lowet Basin by <br />Article III(a) of the Compact to Arizona, 4.4jm.a.f. to <br />California, and 300,000 to Nevada, while allowing rizona and <br />Nevada the exclusive use of their tributaries. H if of the <br />surplus water, if any, in the mainstream went to Arizona and <br />half to California. In the event of a shortage of,mainstream <br />i <br />water, the Secretary of Interior was directed to equitably <br />prorate the deficiency. The Federal Government has awarded <br />reserved rights for its reserved lands in the Lower Basin, <br />and five Indian reservation received about 1.0 m. a. f . of <br />reserved rights water to be counted against the apportionment <br />of the state in which each reservation is situated;. <br />By excluding the tributaries from the allocation, the <br />i <br />Court instantaneously vaporized most, if not 411, of the <br />i <br />"surplus" water above the Article III(a) 7.5 m.a.f. appor- <br />tionment -- of which California would be entitle to a half <br />share. The Court itself estimated that this particular <br />determination cost California 1.0 m.a.f. and benefitted <br />Arizona by the same amount. 373 U.S. at 5 7-68. The <br />decision also shifted much more of the Lower Bas n's Mexican <br />Treaty obligation to California than otherwis <br />occurred. <br />Arizona v. California has attracted <br />tary, much of it critical.28 Besides vindicat <br />it expanded Federal control over interstate wa <br />would have <br />ive commen- <br />Arizona,29 <br />rights at <br />-12-