Page 2

Arizona has enacted ground-water legislation, but it is effective only in declared critical ground-water areas and the private lands within those areas. Within these declared "critical areas," restrictions against the drilling of new irrigation wells effectively control the expansion of gross irrigated acreage. The law does not restrict the deepening of existing wells or drilling of replacement wells, nor does it restrict the draft in any manner or require the abandonment of existing acreage that may contribute to the overdraft. The State law is not recognized as controlling the drilling of wells on Indian reservations within "critical areas." Also, the boundaries of "critical areas" may be changed from time to time following notice and hearing by the State Land Commissioner. California has not enacted any general restrictive ground-water control law, however, the courts have followed the doctrine of correlative rights under which ground-water levels can be controlled through court action instituted by overlying owners. New Mexico and Nevada water laws require permits and control ground-water withdrawals. The fact remains, however, that, even if effective ground-water legislation is enacted today, there is no guarantee that a future state legislature might not try to change the law in a manner so as to defeat the objectives we wish to achieve. Consequently, State legislative action may not necessarily be an appropriate means to assure permanent control over ground-water withdrawals unless the Secretary is given the power to approve the legislation and make deliveries of water contingent upon its continued effectiveness. 2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 14,112,768 byte