WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002193 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 19 in reality her share of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of Lower Basin water, is on "water of and from the Colorado River," not of and from the "Colorado River System." But more importantly, the negotiations among the States and the congressional debates leading to the passage of the Project Act clearly show that the language used by Congress in the Act was meant to refer to mainstream waters only. Inclu- sion of the tributaries in the Compact was natural in view of the upper States' strong feeling that the Lower Basin tributaries should be made to share the burden of any ob- ligation to deliver water to Mexico which a future treaty might impose. But when it came to an apportionment among the Lower Basin States, the Gila, by far the most important Lower Basin tributary, would not logically be included, since Arizona alone of the States could effec- tively use that river.'o Therefore, with minor exceptions, the proposals and counterproposals over the years, cul- minating in the Project Act, consistently provided for division of the mainstream only, reserving the tributaries to each State's exclusive use. The most important negotiations among the States, which in fact formed the basis of the debates leading to passage of the Act, took place in 1927 when the Governors of the seven basin States met at Denver in an effort to work out an allocation of the Lower Basin waters accept- able to Arizona, California, and Nevada. Arizona and California made proposals," both of which suggested giv- ing Nevada 300,000 acre-feet out of the mainstr~am of the Colorado River and reserving to each State the exclusive use of her own tributaries. Arizona proposed that all remaining mainstream water be divided equally between '0 Not only does.the Gila enter the Colorado almost at the Mexican border, but also in dry seasons it virtually evaporates before reaching the Colorado. "See 69 Congo Rec. 9454 (1928).