OCR Text |
Show Honorable Harold Ickes (3) 7-15-4? reservoir at Virgin City) and a loss in the distribution system, but the return flow may be larger than the distribution loss by-possible 17,000 acre feet. It is evident that Utah should have contracts for the use of an amount of "A" water which together with the "A" water Utah now usse will total 150,000 acre feet-distinctly described in the contracts as part of the 7,500,000 acre feet "A" water allocated to the lower basin by the Colorado River Compact. New Mexico also is fairly entitled to a share of "A" waters. Contracts for the sale of 'V" waters to California, Arizona and Nevada should be limited to a total amount that is less than the 7,500,000 acre feet of :V." water allocated to the lower basin by 150,000 acre feet fairly belonging to Utah and by an amount of "A" water fairly belonging to New Mexico. It seems unfortunate that California (in 1929) was given contracts for 5!362,000 acre feet of water-plus evaporation loss estimated at 900,000 acre feet. However, under the sales contract such water is subject to "available". In answers to questions by Senator Hayden., Secretary Hoover stated there was surplus water "call it 5,000,000 acre feet" annually in the Colorado River (January 30, 192?). There is no such surplus. The proven smaller river and tne fair claim of Mexico force each State to be vigilant in insisting that no violation of the terras of the Colorado River Compact be permitted. The area in Utah within tne lower basin is supporting at least 1,200 farm families upon farms that do not exceed an average of tnree acres per person. Citrous fruits, sugar beet seed and other intensive crops make this possible. Well kept towns, fine schools, churches, recreation aalls all testify to tae industry and self reliance of a sturdy people. Nowhere could ths conservation of agriculcurel water supply be of greater value or of aigher beneficial use. Cf tne Seven States ConinifEee aurteen. Approved: Utah Sttte Jngineer "ovsrnor of Utah. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |