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.

II. Exclusion of the Tributaries from the Lower
Basin Accounting, If They Are Included in the
Colorado River Compact's Interbasin Accounting

Preliminary Statement

1. The paradox

2. The first factual misconception: The magnitude
of the Gila and its usefulness outside Arizona ....
a. As to the magnitude of the Gila...

b. The Gila as a common lower basin asset, use-
ful to California

3. The second factual misconception: Attempted
equation of the flow of the stream with consump-
tive use

Argument

I. The "Statutory Apportionment Scheme"
A. The Court ignores its previous decisions hold-
ing that the Project Act did not make any
statutory apportionment
B. Congress did not impose a statutory appor-
tionment on the States or authorize the Sec-
retary of the Interior to do so...

1. The Court's reliance on statements of Sena-
tor Hayden and other opponents of the
Project Act is misplaced

16

a. Senator Hayden did not believe that the
Project Act made a statutory apportion-
ment

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
plain language of section 4(a), and the an-
swers to them ...

B. The Compact's provisions with respect to the
Mexican Treaty burden require that the trib-
utaries shall be accounted for between the two
basins, and among the States of the lower
basin, in exactly the same manner. Failure
to do so not only would produce a result
grotesquely unfair to California, but would
create an insoluble administrative problem for
the Secretary of the Interior

C. The Court's construction of section 4(a) gives
Arizona 948,000 acre-feet more than Senator
Hayden told the Senate that Arizona asked ..
D. Arizona's windfall on the Little Colorado ...
Points to be Considered in Connection with the Pro-
posed Decree

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

28

36

38

40

42

CASES:

Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931)
Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (1934)
Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558 (1936)
Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Com., 359 U.S. 275
(1959)

.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 August 30, 1935, 49 Stat. 1039

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,
1940, § 14; 54 Stat. 779; 43 U.S.C. § 618m (1958).. 26, 27
California Limitation Act, Cal. Stats. 1929, ch. 16, at 38 11
Colorado River Campact, H.R. Doc. No. 717, 80th Cong.,

Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956,
§7; 70 Stat. 110; 43 U.S.C. § 620f (1958)
Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877, § 1; 19 Stat. 377,
as amended; 43 U.S.C. § 321 (1958)

27

24-493 63 pt. 1 16