Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002186 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNiA. <br /> <br />that the Secretary's contracts would be subject to any <br />compact dividing the benefits of the water between Ari- <br />zona, California, and Nevada, or any two of them, ap- <br />proved by Congress on or before January 1, 1929, but <br />that any such compact approved after that date should <br />be "subject to all contracts, if any, made by the Secre- <br />tary of the Interior under section 5 hereof prior to the <br />date of such approval and consent by Congress." <br />The Project Act became effective on June 25,1929, by <br />Presidential Proclamation,'O after six States, including <br />California, had ratified the Colorado River Compact and <br />the California legislature had accepted the limitation of <br />4,400,000 acre-feet 31 as required by the Act. Neither the <br />three States or any two of them ever entered into any ap- <br />portionment compact as authorized by ~~ 4 (a) and 8 (b). <br />After the construction of Boulder Dam the Secretary of <br />the Interior, purporting to act tinder the authority of the <br />Project Act, made contracts with various water users in <br />California for 5,362,000 acre-feet, with Nevada for 300,000 <br />acre-feet, and with Arizona for 2,800,000 acre-feet of <br />water from that stored at Lake Mead. <br />The Special Master appointed by this Court found that <br />the Colorado River Compact, the law of prior appropria- <br />tion, and the doctrine of equitable apportionment--by <br />which doctrine this Court in the absence of statute re- <br />solves interstate claims according to the equities-do not <br />control the issues in this case. The Master concluded <br />that, since the Lower Basin States had failed to make a <br />compact to allocate the waters among themselves as au- <br />thorized by ~~ 4 (a) and 8 (b), the Secretary's contracts <br />with the States had within the statutory scheme of ~~ 4 (a), <br />5, and 8 (b) effected an apportionment of the waters of <br />the mainstream which, according to the Master, were the <br /> <br />3046 Stat. 3000 (1929). <br />at California Limitation Act, Cal. Stat. 1929, c. 16, at 38. <br />