Laserfiche WebLink
<br />in the Secretary of the Interior is concerned, <br />it does not effect us. <br /> <br />There is one part of the decision, however, <br />which does disturb us greatly. That was the <br />interpretation made by the Supreme Court of water <br />which is specified in the Boulder Canyon Project <br />Act as being water apportioned by Article III (a) <br />of the Colorado River Compact. The Supreme <br />Court ignored the Colorado River Compact, despite <br />the fact that the Boulder Canyon project Act, <br />which they were interpreting, said III (a) water <br />is water defined by the Colorado River Compact. <br />In doing so, the Supreme Court in effect gave to <br />Arizona, as far as California is concerned, all <br />the waters of the downstream tributaries plus a <br />share of the main stem. Of course this is quite <br />a blow to California. But we are not t~,ing sides <br />as to who should have the water. The thing that <br />disturbed us was that not only did the supreme <br />Court eliminate the Gila and other tributaries <br />as far as California was concerned, but Arizona, <br />in the case itself, contended that the Gila River <br />was not subject to the terms of the Colorado <br />River Compact. If there is anything that we <br />thought was clear in the Colorado River Compact <br />it was the definition of the Colorado River sys- <br />tem 1rlhich we have cited in our brief. We thought <br />that was one thing that was crystal clear - that <br />the Gila, the Green, the Gunnison, and whatever <br />tributaries the Colorado may have, are part of <br />the Colorado River system as it so states in the <br />Compact. <br /> <br />The danger is, if the Supreme Court used the <br />same definition against the Upper Basin then we <br />gave away the Colorado River twice. He gave <br />a\'lay the main stem and also the tributaries. This <br />would permit Arizona to take its share twice. <br />That being the case we would have to deliver more <br />water at Lee Ferry than we have ever contemplated. <br /> <br />This matter will be taken up by the Upper <br />Colorado River Commission on the 27th of this <br />month in connection with a request by the Secre- <br />tary of the Interior that we review the proposed <br />Lower Basin water plan. We will attempt to <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />