Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002185 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />provided that, if fewer than seven States ratified within six <br />months, the Act should not take effect unless six States <br />including California ratified and unless California, by its <br />legislature, agreed "irrevocably and unconditionally . . . <br />as an express covenant" to a limit on its annual consump- <br />tion of Colorado River water of "four million four hundred <br />thousand acre-feet of the waters apportioned to the lower <br />basin States by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado <br />River compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess <br />or surplus waters unapportioned by said compact." Con- <br />gress in the same section showed its continuing desire to <br />have California, Arizona, and Nevada settle their own dif- <br />ferences by authorizing them to make an agreement ap- <br />portioning to Nevada 300,000 acre-feet, and to Arizona <br />2,800,000 acre-feet plus half of any surplus waters unap- <br />portioned by the Compact. The permitted agreement <br />also was to allow Arizona exclusive use of the Gila River, <br />wholly free from any Mexican obligation, a position Ari- <br />zona had taken from the beginning. Sections 5 and 8 (b) <br />of the Project Act made provisions for the sale of the <br />stored waters. The Secretary of the Interior was author- <br />ized by ~ 5 "under such general regulations as he may pre- <br />scribe, to contract for the storage of water in said reservoir <br />and for the delivery thereof at such points on the river <br />and on said canal as may be agreed upon, for irrigation and <br />domestic uses. . .." Section 5 required these contracts <br />to be "for permanent service" and further provided, <br />"No person shall have or be entitled to have the use for <br />any purpose of the water stored as aforesaid except by <br />contract made as herein stated." Section 8 (b) provided <br /> <br />agreed on in the Compact would be nullified, The reasoning was that <br />Arizona's uses would not be charged against the Lower Basin's appor- <br />tionment and that California would therefore be free to exhaust that <br />apportionment herself. Total Lower Basin uses would then be more <br />than permitted in the Compact, leaving less water for the Upper <br />Basin. <br />