WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002216 42 ARIZONA v, CALIFORNIA. vada only if contracts have been made by the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to ~ 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, for the delivery of such water." While the California contracts are directly with water users and the Arizona contract specifically contemplates further subcon- tracts with actual users, it is argued that the Nevada con- tract, made by the Secretary directly with the State of Nevada through her Colorado River Commission, should be construed as a contract to deliver water to the State without the necessity of subcontracts by the Secre- tary directly with Nevada water users. The United States disagrees, contending that properly construed the Nevada contract, like the Secretary's general contract with Ari- zona, does not exhaust the Secretary's power to require Nevada water users other than the State to make further contracts. To construe the Nevada contract otherwise, the Government suggests, would bring it in conflict with the provision of ~ 5 of the Project Act that "No person shall have or be entitled to have the use for any purpose of the water stored as aforesaid except by contract [with the Sec- retary] made as herein stated." Acceptance of Nevada's contention here would not only undermine this plain con- gressional requirement that water users have contracts with the Secretary but would likewise transfer from the Secretary to Nevada a large part, if not all, of the Secre- tary's power to determlne'with whom he will contract and on what terms. We have already held that the con- tractual power granted the Secretary cannot be diluted in this manner. We therefore reject Nevada's contention. III. ApPORTIONMENT AND CONTRACTS IN TIME OF SHORTAGE. We have agreed with the Master that the Secretary's contracts with Arizona for 2,800,000 acre-feet of water and with Nevada for 300,000, together with the limitation