OCR Text |
Show REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT 443 Mr. Carson. No. The point here, Mr. Fernandez, if you take the over-all apportionment of the basin, there is 8y2 million feet of water to the lower basin. California is limited to 4,400,000 acre-feet. That leaves Arizona 3,800,000 acre-feet of apportioned water, which California has agreed she can never use. Mr. Fernandez. But they say it is not 8y2 million acre-feet of water, but 7y2 million acre-feet. Therefore, they would be entitled to one-half a million of the surplus. Mr. White. I think that the gentleman from New Mexico is confusing the water in the main Colorado River and the tributary, the Gila River. Mr. Fernandez. I am not confusing it for this reason, that if the Gila water of 1,000,000 acre-feet that they claim from that stream is credited against what they are supposed to get from the main stream, that leaves them with a claim for much less water than they say they are entitled to, and with that much more surplus to be divided. Mr. White. The legislative limitation imposed on itself by the State of California, does that conform exactly to the limitation set up in the authorization bill ? Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Mr. White. It conforms exactly? Mr. Carson. Yes; it conforms exactly, irrevocably, and unconditionally. Now, Mr. Fernandez, on that question of what is apportioned to the lower basin, I think that California would agree that 8y2 million feet are apportioned to the lower basin. Whether they would agree or not, it is clear from this Colorado compact. Mr. Fernandez. As Congress interpreted the transactions leading up to the compact and as you interpret the interpretation made by Congress. Mr. Carson. No; as the compact shows in its express terms. Mr. Fernandez. Will you read those express terms ? Mr. Carson (reading) : (a) There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River system in perpetuity to the upper basin and to the lower basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist. (b) In addition to the apportionment in paragraph (a), the lower basin is hereby given the right to increase its beneticial consumptive use of such waters by 1,000,000 acre-feet per annum. (cO If, as a matter of international comity, the United States of America shall hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the us^e of any waters of the Colorado River system, such waters shall be supplied first from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified In paragraphs (a) and (b) ; and if such surplus shall prove insufficient for this purpose, then the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the upper basin and the lower basin, and whenever necessary the States of the upper division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half of the deficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d). Now, I jump down to (f). These others do not affect this particular question. (f) Further equitable apportionment of the beneficial uses of the waters of the Colorado River system unapportioned by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) may be made in the manner provided in paragraph (g) at any time after October 1, 1963, if and when either basin shall have reached its total beneficial consumptive use as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). |
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] : |