OCR Text |
Show 96 CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT It is with regret that we arc impelled to take exception to the findings on several points in the report that are of importance to Nevada. In order to facilitate future reference to our comments and questions, if any should be made, they have been numbered. 1. There is a grave question regarding the availability of water to Arizona to supply the project. Your study and recommendation is apparently based upon an assumption by Arizona officials that sufficient water will be available. This assumption is strongly endorsed by political and financial interests in Arizona. As you have proceeded to make an exhaustive report based on Arizona's contention, it is assumed that those views are endorsed by the Bureau. On the other hand, studies have been made by California and Nevada engineers which show that there will be little or no water for the central Arizona project. There are some references in the text to the effect that the Bureau is taking no stand regarding a division of water. Pending a determination of the availability of water, and the legal right to use it, which consideration should come first with any project, why did the Bureau proceed with and complete this detailed study with the use of public funds? Investigations and reports should be held up, or be only preliminary in character, where there is a question as to availability of water. There are various projects in the upper basin that can be reported on in detail, where there is as yet no question of sufficient water. It seems to me that the Arizona report, and all other reports, should be based upon the present reclamation law. When the law is amende'd revised reports can be prepared with very little additional expense. The Arizona report in its present form advocates the project, if changes in the law are made, and as such may be considered as propaganda for new policies of the Bureau of Reclamation. 2. Mr. Straus states (p. 1, "Authority for the Report") that "the report was prepared in compliance with a directive from the Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee of the Public Lands Committee of the United States Senate, 1947, the report to be in accordance with the Millikin-O'Mahoney amendment to the Flood Control Act of 1944." Were not the requirements of said act exceeded in getting out this exhaustive report, while other States, with projects of greater merit under present reclamation law, await the Bureau's attention later? 3. Does not the report go somewhat further than what was contemplated by the Millikin-O'Mahoney amendment to the Flood Control Act of 1944? 4. Referring to the 376,000 acre-feet of saline waters to be released from the project (p. R-35, par. 9). It is estimated that the release of 376,000 acre-feet a year into the channel of the Gila River at Gillespie Dam would result in an increase of flow at the mouth of the Gila River amounting to 123,000 acre-feet per year. This will be highly saline water, (p. 2, par. 10.) Do you contemplate delivering this saline water to Mexico as a part of her treaty water? It would seem that the treaty calls for water to Mexico suitable for irrigation. If it is not usable, can you claim it as a credit return flow to the Colorado River? Will the releases from Gillespie Dam be handled in such a way that the 123,000 acre-feet reaching Mexico will carry the bulk of the salt? 5. Should you not have included in your estimates an ultimate delivery of 240,000 acre-feet of Arizona's mainstream water for de- |
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] : |