OCR Text |
Show CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT 11 development along the main stream of the Colorado River in the Parker area, in Mohave Valley, in Cibola Valley, and in the Little Colorado River Basin. You will note that in these figures of water supply I have not taken into account any of the surplus water which under the terms of the Colorado River Compact is subject to further apportionment between the seven States of the basin after 1963. Arizona, therefore, is not now proposing to predicate the development of either the Gila project or the central Arizona project upon the use of any water which might later be withdrawn by any other State. We in Arizona respect our commitments and we do not desire or intend in any way to embarrass or prejudice developments in any other State in the Colorado River Basin nor to claim any part of any water not properly and exclusively usable in Arizona. In order to make clear Arizona's understanding of the water supply in the lower basin and of the apportionment of water in the lower basin and of the quantities of water available to Arizona, I summarize in the following table which I believe makes our position clear. Available supply and apportionment of water in the lower basin Acre-feet Virgin flow at Lee Ferry________......______________________ 16, 270, 000 Less apportionment to upper basin, art. Ill (a) Colorado River compact_____________________________.......____________ 7, 500,000 Total_______________________________________________ 8, 770, 000 Natural gain from tributaries, Lee Ferry to Boulder Dam________ 1, 060, 000 Total_______________________________________________ 9, 830, 000 Natural gain from tributaries, Boulder Dam to Mexican border___ 1, 420, 000 Total____________......_______................_____11,250,000 Less natural losses, estimated________________________________ 1, 030, 000 Total..___________________________.......__________ 10, 220, 000 Allocated to Mexico by treaty___________________......_____ 1, 500, 000 Total______________________________________________ 8, 720, 000 Apportioned to lower basin, art. Ill (a) and (b) Colorado River compact____......______________________________________ 8, 500, 000 Not apportioned to lower basin but present in lower basin__ 220, 000 Apportioned to lower basin__________________________________ 8, 500, 000 Potential uses of water, other States of the lower basin: Potential uses in California limited by California Limitation Act_____________________.....___4, 400, 000 Ne'vada contract______________________________ 300, 000 Ultimate possible uses, Utah and New Mexico____ 130, 000 -------------- 4, 830, 000 Usable only in Arizona________________________________ 3, 670, 000 Present uses in Arizona from main stream and tributaries, including Gila___________________________________________________ 1,408,000 Left for Arizona, additional main-stream water (consumptive uses) _ 2, 262, 000 Consumptive use, Yuma-Mesa and Welton-Mohawk divisions of Gila project (authorized last year) (600,000-34,000 present uses)____________________ 566,000 Consumptive use, Bridge Canyon-central Arizona project (authorization bill pending)______________________ 1, 077, 000 -------------- 1, 643, 000 Left in main stream apportioned to Arizona for future development and consumptive use in Arizona including Arizona's share of reservoir losses (after deduction for both Gila project and proposed central Arizona project)__________ 619,000 88367-49------2 |
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] : |