STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PALO VERDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF NEVADA, Interveners, STATE OF NEW MEXICO and STATE OF UTAH, Impleaded Defendants. PETITION FOR REHEARING Submitted by STATE OF CALIFORNIA In Which Join The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, Coachella Valley County Water District, and Palo Verde Irrigation District SEPTEMBER 16, 1963 (See list of attorneys on next page) PRESS OF BYRON S. ADAMS, WASHINGTON, D. C. For the State of California STANLEY MOSK Los Angeles 12, California NORTHCUTT ELY Special Assistant Attorney General Tower Building Washington 5, D. C. CHARLES E. CORKER Assistant Attorney General BURTON J. GINDLER Deputy Attorney General Los Angeles 12, California C. EMERSON DUNCAN II Tower Building For Palo Verde Irrigation ROY H. MANN 6th and Main Streets For Coachella Valley County EARL REDWINE II. Exclusion of the Tributaries from the Lower Preliminary Statement 1. The paradox 2. The first factual misconception: The magnitude b. The Gila as a common lower basin asset, use- 3. The second factual misconception: Attempted Argument I. The "Statutory Apportionment Scheme" 1. The Court's reliance on statements of Sena- 16 a. Senator Hayden did not believe that the 17 24 b. The charges of the opponents of the bill were refuted by the bill's proponents ... 22 2. The Court has overlooked the legislative history of section 18 and this Court's previous construction of that section .... 3. There is no present or potential conflict between the principles of equitable apportionment or state law and effective_implementation of the objectives of the Project Act ... 26 II. The Exclusion of the Tributaries ... Page 28 A. The Court's five reasons for rejecting the B. The Compact's provisions with respect to the C. The Court's construction of section 4(a) gives TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED 28 36 38 40 42 CASES: Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931) .10, 11, 25 13 28 United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174 (1935). 12 INTERSTATE COMPACTS, STATUTES AND RULES: Act of April 21, 1904, § 25; 33 Stat. 224 ..... Act of Aug. 4, 1954, § 4; 68 Stat. 667 (as amended by 70 Stat. 1088 (1956)); 16 U.S.C. § 1004 (1958) .. Act of Aug. 4, 1955, 69 Stat. 491 Act of Aug. 28, 1937, § 4; 50 Stat. 870; 16 U.S.C. § 590u (1958) Act of Aug. 28, 1958, § 202; 72 Stat. 1059 Act of Dec. 19, 1913, § 11; 38 Stat. 250 Act of Feb. 1, 1905, § 4; 33 Stat. 628; 16 U.S.C. § 524 (1958) Act of Feb. 26, 1897, 29 Stat. 599, 43 U.S.C. § 664 (1958) Act of July 2, 1956, § 4; 70 Stat. 484; 43 U.S.C. § 485h-4 (1958) Page Act of July 9, 1870, § 17; 16 Stat. 218; 30 U.S.C. § 52 (1958) 27 Act of July 10, 1952, § 208; 66 Stat. 560; 43 U.S.C. § 666 (a) & (c) (1958) 27 Act of July 23, 1955, § 4(b); 69 Stat. 368-69; 30 U.S.C. § 612(b) (1958) 27 Act of July 26, 1866, § 9; 14 Stat. 253; 30 U.S.C. § 51 (1958) 27 Act of July 28, 1954, § 3(c), 68 Stat. 577-78 27 Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 36, 16 U.S.C. § 481 (1958) 27 Act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 375 27 Act of March 1, 1907, 34 Stat. 1035 27 Act of March 2, 1897, 29 Stat. 603 27 Act of March 3, 1891, § 18; 26 Stat. 1101, as amended; 27 Act of May 30, 1908, 35 Stat. 560 .. Boulder Canyon Project Act of Dec. 21, 1928, 45 Stat. 1065, 43 U.S.C. §§ 617-617t (1958) Sec. 4(a) .... .8, 15, 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40 .16, 28 18 28 14, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27 Sec. 18 Sec. 19 31 Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act of July 19, Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956, 27 24-493 63 pt. 1 16 |