Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />ll01816 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />are not to be charged to California under the Limitation Act. <br /> <br /> <br />Arizona omitted every reference to reservoir losses from her <br /> <br /> <br />August 1958 "amended" pleadings, and was silent on the subject <br /> <br />in her 1959 proposed findings and in her briefs. <br />Although Arizona still argues that III(b) water is <br />"apportioned" water, which California under the Limitation Act <br />may not use, her III(b) position had altered beyond recognition. <br />In her pleadings Arizona alleged that her position with respect <br />to III(b) was "sustained by the decision of this Court in the <br />case of Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341.,,1/ In her April 1 <br />brief Arizona devoted three pages to explaining why Mr. Justice <br />Brandeis misread the Compact when he said in that case that <br />it applies to the Colorado River and its tributaries including <br />the Gila..v <br /> <br />Some of the contentions abandoned by Arizona have <br />been taken up by the other parties. Nevada, for example, now <br />takes the position that "beneficial consumptive use" means <br />depletion of the virgin flow of the main stream, the contention <br /> <br />by which Arizona originally tried to tailor the uses on the <br />Gila to something approaching the l,OOO,OOO acre-feet specified <br />in Article III(b) of the Compact with which she sought to <br /> <br />identify the Gila. However, not one of the original issues <br /> <br />y <br />y <br /> <br />Arizona Bill of Complaint, par. XXII. <br />Arizona Opening Brief, pp. 57-59. <br /> <br />28. <br />