WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0322J8 34 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. ticular, the Secretary is bound to observe the Act's limita- tion of 4,400,000 acre-feet on California's consumptive uses out of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water. This necessarily leave the remaining 3,100,000 acre-feet for the use of Arizona and Nevada, since they are the only other States with access to the main Colorado River. Nevada consistently took the position, accepted by the other States throughout the debates, that her con- ceivable needs would not exceed 300,000 acre-feet, which, of course, left 2,800,000 acre-feet for Arizona's use. More- over, Congress indicated that it thought this a proper divi- sion of the waters when in the second paragraph of ~ 4 (a) it gave advance consent to a tri-state compact adopting such division. While no such compact was ever entered into, the Secretary by his contracts has apportioned the water in the approved amounts and thereby followed the guidelines set down by Congress. And, as the- Master pointed out, Congress set up other standards and placed other significant limitations upon the Secretary's power to distribute the stored waters. It specifically set out in order the purposes for which the Secretary must use the dam and the reservoir: "First, for river regulation, improvement of naviga- tion, and flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic uses and satisfaction of present perfected rights in pursuance of Article VIII of said Colorado River compact; and third, for power." ~ 6. The Act further requires the Secretary to make revenue provisions in his contracts adequate to ensure the recovery of the expenses of construction, operation, and main- tenance of the dam and other works within 50 years after their construction. ~ 4 (b). The Secretary is directed to make water contracts for irrigation and domestic uses only for "permanent service." ~ 5. He and his permittees, licensees, and contractees are subject to the Colorado