OCR Text |
Show THE WESTERN WEB 97 1,100,000 acre-feet, a very important amount of water. The consumptive use theory, declared Ely, had been followed by the framers of the Compact, followed by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, by the water contracts be- tween California and the Federal Government. Arizona had represented her uses in the Supreme Court in those terms, and the treaty with Mexico defined consumptive use as California did. But the most important of all definitions of the con- sumptive use theory, said Ely, was given by the Supreme Court on June 11, 1945.78 It said: "Consumptive use represents the difference between water diverted and water which returns to the stream after use for irriga- tion." The second basic difference was whether California was precluded from using Three-B waters, as defined in the Compact, a million acre-feet. California's position was that she was entitled to half of the whole surplus, and that this contention was in accord with the legis- lative history of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. A quantity of not less than 500,000 acre-feet was at stake in this matter. The third basic issue involved reservoir evaporation losses. Should they be charged against California? Yes, said Arizona. No, said California. Ely introduced evidence purporting to show that the water contracts between the government and the states of California, Arizona and Nevada were written subject to the "availability" of water under the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the Compact.79 Rep. Charles K. Fletcher of California made a brief appearance to tell the committee that half a million persons in San Diego County, whom he represented, |