Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001823 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />River system.lI In argument with Representative Hayden of <br />Arizona, in 1926, he made it abundantly clear that these amend- <br />ments were written with the Gila River in mind,g( <br />Why? If you will examine the text of Article III(c) <br />of the Colorado River Compact, which provides the allocation of <br />the Mexican Treaty burden, you will find the answer, The treaty <br />is to be satisfied first from "waters which are surplus over and <br /> <br />above the aggregate of the quantities specified in paragraphs <br />[III] (a) and [III] (b)." Article IU(a) is an apportionment <br />"from the Colorado River System," Article III(b) is a right to <br />increase the use "of such waters." If uses from the lower basin <br /> <br />tributaries are uses of waters from the Colorado River system, <br />they are III(a) uses, "rights which may now exist," in the <br />language of III(a), since the Gila had been appropriated before <br /> <br />the Compact was executed and before it became effective. The <br /> <br />75,000,000 acre-feet of flow at Lee Ferry, to the extent that <br /> <br />III (a) uses are on the lower basin tributaries, is water to supply <br /> <br />uses of another category, Part is surplus, available for Mexico, <br /> <br />To the extent it is surplus, the upper states have made a III(c) <br /> <br />contribution which they need not make again, <br /> <br />11 Boulder Canyon Project Act S 13(b), (c), and (d), <br /> <br />EI Hearings Before House Committee on Irrigation and <br />Reclamation on H.R. 6251 and H.R. 9826, 69th Cong., lst Sess., <br />pt. 1 (1926), pp. 208-l0, quoted in California Response to <br />Arizona, June 1, 1959, pp, 49-5l. <br /> <br />35. <br />