Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Ou1821 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4. Can Arizona v. California be decided without any <br /> <br /> <br />determination of the water supply available for beneficial <br /> <br /> <br />consumptive use in the lower basin? The United states and <br /> <br /> <br />Arizona say yes to this question; California says no. Cali- <br /> <br /> <br />fornia is supported in that answer by every previously decided <br /> <br /> <br />interstate water case which has resulted in a decree.1I <br /> <br />5. Have all appropriative priorities been displaced <br />(a) on the Colorado River main stream, and (b) in federal <br />reclamation projects which have reclamation contracts with the <br />United states? Arizona says that Boulder Canyon Project Act <br />water delivery contracts are a unique species, that they displace <br />all appropriative priorities. The United states agrees with us <br />that these contracts are like other reclamation law contracts, <br />and recognizes that they are controlled by section 8 of the <br />Reclamation Act of 1902. However, the Government argues for a <br />decree that recognizes no priorities on the main stream, except <br />for Indians. Since any prospective shortage, according to the <br />Government, is ascribable to the Mexican Treaty,g( it is <br />unnecessary to decide if priorities exist absent the treaty. <br />If necessary to decide whether priorities exist, the Government <br />says it would examine the Reclamation Act, its history, and <br />submit another brief. At any rate, priorities under state law, <br />the Government says, are not recognized. The United states <br /> <br />11 Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 47l-88 (1922); <br />Washington v. Oregon, 297 u.s. 517, 520 (1936); Nebraska v. <br />Wyoming, 325 U.s. 589, 620-2l (l945). <br /> <br />g( This is equivalent to a coroner"s certificate identifying <br />which straw broke the camel's back. <br /> <br />33. <br />