Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001548 <br /> <br />lr':~~ <br />;~\i~& <br /> <br />':{~f~ <br /> <br />is binding if injustice can be avoided only by <br />enforcement of the promise . . . <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />A promisee must have actually relied upon a promise. That is, <br />in the setting of the uses of the waters of the Colorado River, <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />California must have actually utilized surplus not required by the <br />Upper Basin. The Promisor (Upper Basin) must have had reason to <br /> <br />expect the reliance that occurred even though the promisor may not <br />have bargained for it. ,Tl)at is, the promisor is not liable if the <br /> <br />promisor had no reason to expect any reliance at all or had reason <br /> <br />to expect reliance but not of the sort that occurred. 'Id. The <br /> <br />point of all this is to suggest that, in the absence of the 1922 <br />Compact, California might be able to contend, based on its actual <br /> <br />utilization of Upper Basin waters, that the Upper Basin was <br /> <br />estopped from denying it a fixed supply. That is, California might <br /> <br />be able to argue that new Upper Basin uses, like water marketing, <br /> <br />deprive it of implied contract rights. <br /> <br />In contrast, in the presence of the 1922 Compact, a request by <br />one or more contracting states to reinterpret the Compact so as to <br />allow interstate Tribal leasing requires the consent of all <br /> <br />contracting parties. While that consent can be withheld, it cannot <br /> <br />be withheld by California on the basis that it has detrimentally <br />relied on the Compact so that it is entitled to a fixed supply of <br /> <br />Upper Basin surplus. To the contrary, any and all waters above <br />4,400,000 acre-feet a year represents surplus which under the terms <br /> <br />of the Compact mayor may not be available in any given year. <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />f: <br />