Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001811 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />among the states, Arizona claimed that the 2,800,000 acre-feet <br />was (l) all in the main stream, and (2) all water the use of <br />which is apportioned by Article III(a) of the Compact. In her <br />proposed findings and conclusions of April l, 1959, Arizona for <br />the first time asserted that her 1944 contract is invalid in <br /> <br />certain particulars: recognition of rights of New Mexico and <br />Utah from lower basin tributaries, its recognition of rights of <br />Nevada in "excess or surplus" waters, and its provision <br /> <br />diminishing Arizona rights by reason of Arizona uses on <br />tributaries above Lake Mead.1I <br /> <br />11 Arizona Conclusions 4, 5, and 7. California says that <br />the entire contract is invalid bpcause it was expressly condi- <br />tioned on Arizona's ratification of the Colorado River Compact, <br />and California denies that the purported ratification of the <br />Compact by Arizona in 1944 was legally effective. California <br />denies that any contract creates a water right absent appropria- <br />tion to the use of a specifj,c project. The United states agrees <br />(Reply Brief, pp. 37-38) but argues that a contract nevertheless <br />creates an "entitlement" which may serve as the basis of a decree. <br /> <br />23. <br />