AZ vs. CA:25 California Exhibits, Vol. XXV; Nos. 7501-7859

page 519

REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT 519 I can illustrate this very clearly. Even if Mr. Dowd should prevail and say we are using 2,000,000 acre-feet on Gila-which we do not admit for a moment-why, we would have to deduct a million acre-feet out of our otherwise main stream apportionment, which would still leave 1,600,000 acre-feet for us in the main stream. This project takes 600,000 acre-feet, which still leaves us with a million acre-feet, with the use on the Indian reservations, and the water required for this project, if we utilized all of that, we would not even then have reached our limitation even under that construction on this project. Of course, we have gone into a lot of argument about ultimate conditions that may happen in the upper basin and the lower basin, as may now or in the future take effect, but even with those ultimate conditions as projected they would not be jeopardized as to these water rights. Again, if Mr. Dowd's theory should prevail on the consumptive use on the Gila River-which to my mind it cannot, and is not capable of being done-but even if it should prevail, if they could show that the salvage water on the Gila River-that is, if they can, by salvaging the water, and the salvage I am satisfield would be less than 500,-000 acre-feet, and might be as low as 400,000 acre-feet, but even if they should prevail on that, what would happen? That would merely add up on their consumptive use in the basin, and reduce our firnl supply and leave a surplus in the main stream to which they would be entitled to one-half. The water would be in the main stream because we are only figuring on the water at Lee Ferry. So if we deduct that from our firm water it is still bound to be in the main stream of the river at Lake Mead, and they could use half of that, so the most we could ever lose is 200,000 acre-feet, or 300,000 acre-feet, or thereabouts.