WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002191 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 17 "domestic," 36 and ~ 6 requires satisfaction of "present perfected rights" as used in the Compact."' Obviously, therefore, those particular terms, though originally formu- lated only for the Compact's allocation of water between basins, are incorporated into the Act and are made appli- cable to the Project Act's allocation among Lower Basin States. The Act also declares that the Secretary of the Interior and the United States in the construction, opera- tion, and maintenance of the dam and other works and in the making of contracts shall be subject to and con- trolled by the Colorado River Compact.38 These lat- ter references to the Compact are quite different from the Act's adoption of Compact terms. Such references, unlike the explicit adoption of terms, were used only to show that the Act and its provisions were in no way to upset, alter, or affect the Compact's congressionally ap- proved division of water between the basins. They were not intended to make the Compact and its provisions con- trol or affect the Act's allocation among and distribution of water within the States of the Lower Basin. There- fore, we look to the Compact for terms specifically incor- porated in the Act, and we would also look to it to resolve disputes between the Upper and Lower Basins, were any involved in this case. But no such questions are here. We must determine what apportionment and delivery scheme in the Lower Basin,has been effected through the Secretary's contracts. For that determination, we look to the Project Act alone. B. Mainstream Apportionment.-The congressional scheme of apportionment cannot be understood with- 36" 'Domestic' whenever employed in this Act shall include water uses defined as 'domestic' in said Colorado River compact." 37 The dam and reservoir shall be used, among other things, for "satisfaction of present perfected rights in pursuance of Article VIII of said Colorado River compact." 3. ~~ 1,8 (a), 13 (b) and (c).