WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002D47 ~r. uu AllllJJ;MBLY INTERIM CO~IMITTEE ON WATER Thus, it can be seen that the master's proposed formula of proportion- ate sharing would have been grossly unfair to California because it did not take into consideration apportionment of only the incremental supply13 For purposes of illustration, the following table (using a river supply of 6.0 million acre-feet a year as in previous tables) illustrates the water supply picture under a formula based on this essential mini- mum requirement. Situation Under Minimum Acceptable Shortage Formula 1'otal acre-feet per year Mainstream supply -______________________________________ 6,000,000 'rotal to allocate___________nn_________________________ 6,000,000 California's share: Present perfected rights___________________________________ Share of incremental water (9/34)________________________ 3,500,000 502,930 TotaL_________ _____ _______ ______________ _____ ____ ___ 4,002,930 Present California use_____________~_______________________ 5,362,000 Total Oali fomia 1088______________ _ ______________ _______ _ -( 1,359.070) Arizona's share: Present perfected rights__________________________________ Share of incremental water (22/04) _________________~~___ 600,000 1 ,22H ,:)00 Total_______________________~________________________ 1,829,300 Total Arizona nse_________________________________________ 1,300,000 Surplus available for Central Arizona ProjecL_________~___.__ + 529,300 This table should be compared with Table IX on page 46 showing results of California's contention, the master's recommendation, and the court's decree with a 4.4 guarantee to California. Other Issues A number of other issues were involved in the case. These are being omitted from this report since they do not bear directly upon the major issue with which we are concerned. These other issues included such matters as government claims over the reservation of water for the use of 25 Indian reservations as well as the Arizona-New Mexico Gila controversy. Summary It can be seen that the question of the shortage formula basically turns on the basis of the court's decision itself-an interpretation of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. By leaving the matter of allocation of shortages to the Secretary of the Interior, the court in effect rejected all contentions as to the intent of Congress in 1929 and left the matter to the Secretary of the Interior. In determining the shortage formula he is to impose, the Secretary of the Interior would presumably base III The Master's formula does not give full recognition to present perfected rights. In effect, it penalizes states which have acquired substantial present perfected rights.