Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />0\)1815 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />THE ORIGINAL ISSUES <br /> <br />On June 30, 1959, when the case was finally submitted <br /> <br /> <br />to the Special Master for decision, the issues bore little <br /> <br /> <br />resemblance to those to which the pleadings were directed or <br /> <br /> <br />to the issues to which the bulk of the evidence related. In <br /> <br />their pleadings, both Arizona and the United States told the <br /> <br />Court that these were the principal issues for deCision:lI <br /> <br />"(l) Is the water referred to and affected <br />by Article III(b) of the Colorado River Compact <br />apportioned or unapportioned water?" <br /> <br />"(2) How is beneficial consumptive use to be <br />measured?" <br /> <br />"(3) How are evaporation losses from Lower <br />Basin main stream storage reservoirs to be charged?" <br /> <br />Between Arizona and California there was no contro- <br /> <br />versy on June 30, 1959, with respect to the second and third <br /> <br /> <br />questions. Both agreed at long last that "beneficial consump- <br /> <br /> <br />tive use" in the Compact means "diversions less returns to <br /> <br /> <br />the river. "g/ <br /> <br />California continues to take the position that <br />reservoir losses (almost l,OOO,OOO acre-feet per annum from <br />lower basin main stream reservoirs) are not to be treated, <br />within the lower basin, as a beneficial consumptive use and <br /> <br />1/Arizona Bill of Complaint, par. XXII. The United States <br />in its Petition of Intervention, par. XXXII, quoted these same <br />questions as among the critical issues requiring decision. <br /> <br />51 California Opening Brief, app. 1; Arizona Answering <br />Brief, June l, 1959, pp. 58-65. <br /> <br />27. <br />