WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJ2187 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 13 only waters to be apportioned under the Act, The Master further held that, in the event of a shortage of water making it impossible for the Secretary to supply all the water due California, Arizona, and Nevada under their contracts, the burden of the shortage must be borne by each State in proportion to her share of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet allocated to the Lower Basin, that is, 4.4 b C l'f . 2,8 b A' d .3 b N d - y a 1 orma, - y nzona, an - y eva a, 7.5 7,5 7.5 without regard to the law of prior appropriation. Arizona, Nevada, and the United States support with few exceptions the analysis, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Special Master's report. These parties agree that Congress did not leave division of the waters to an equitable apportionment by this Court but instead created a comprehensive statutory scheme for the alloca- tion of mainstream waters. Arizona, however, believes that the allocation formula established by the Secre- tary's contracts was in fact the formula required by the Act. The United States, along with California, thinks the Master should not have invalidated the provisions of the Arizona and Nevada water contracts requiring those States to deduct from their allocations any diversions of water above Lake Mead which reduce the flow into that lake. California is in basic disagreement with almost all of the Master's Report. She argues that the Project Act, like the Colorado River Compact, deals with the entire Colorado River System, not just the mainstream. This would mean that diversions within Arizona and Nevada of tributary waters flowing in those States would be charged against their apPoI:tionments and that, because tributary water would be added to the mainstream water in computing the first 7,500,000 acre-feet available to the States, there would be a greater likelihood of a surplus, of which California gets one-half. The result of California's