OCR Text |
Show REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT 771 loss to the United States of America. With the enactment of H. R. 5434, a large part of the Mexican water burden can and will be met by return flow from Arizona land. However, it cannot be met by return flow from water diverted into California through the All-American Canal. What are the points of opposition? The chief arguments against this or any similar measure to put waters of the Colorado River on land in Arizona come from the users of Colorado River water in other States, more particularly the SJate of California, who deems such projects as detrimental to her water rights or uses. By virtue of the act passed by Congress in 1928, known as the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the waters of the Colorado River are now being diverted into California for municipal purposes, for irrigation, and for power production. Less than one-tenth of the amount of the present California diversion is now being diverted into Arizona, and H. R. 5434 would greatly increase the amount for Arizona. Witnesses from California are opposed to the contemplated diversion into Arizona on the further alleged grounds that there isn't water enough in the Colorado River to divert what Arizona is asking for without robbing the California diversion, which is now taking place. In considering the question of amount which might be diverted into Arizona, the amount of water physically existing in the river must be considered and also the amount of water to which Arizona is legally entitled under certain legal instruments, such as the Santa Fe Compact of 1922, the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, and the California Limitation Act of 1929, and several water contracts signed by the Secretary of the Interior, both with contracting parties m California and in Arizona. A study of all these legal instruments must be had to get an idea of the legal quantity of water Arizona may legally ask for out of the Colorado River under existing law. The opposing witnesses indicate their opposition to the enactment of this bill "at this time" and imply that they would oppose any legislation to divert water onto Arizona land until there has been an authoritative determination of how-much water is Arizona's legal quota from the main stream of the Colorado River. These witnesses regard H. R. 5434 as providing for a new project and say that enactment of it now is contrary to the recommendations of the recent report of the Bureau of Reclamation on Colorado River development. They contend that before any more water is diverted from the* river there should either be a tri-State agreement among the three States of the lower basin or a judicial determination of each State's quota under existing law. In arriving at that stand, the opposing witnesses contend that to divert about 600,000 acre-feet of water annually, or whatever would be required for the Gila project, would jeopardize California water uses and rights and would be contrary to the terms of law now existing regarding this matter. In keeping with their contention, the opposition witnesses hold that article III (b) of the Santa Fe compact does not apportion a million acre-feet of water in firm supply to the lower basin but that that quantity of water should be regarded as "surplus" under the terms of the compact and therefore subject to a 50-50 division between Arizona and California. This the witnesses supporting H. R. 5434 emphatically deny, as they read the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the Santa Fe compact. The sponsors of this bill, H. R. 5434, contend that the spirit and intent of existing law, as embodied in the Santa Fe compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, and the California Limitation Act of 1929, is to the effect that Arizona is entitled to receive approximately 2,800,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water out of the main stem of that river, if it is physically available. They further contend that it is physically available and that the measurement records of the river, even during the driest 10-year period of the river's recorded history show that more than the physical volume necessary, and more than the compact requires to be let down to the lovfer basin, has actually passed Lee Ferry during the greatest drought period. This circumstance and fact show that the physical quantity of water passing Lee Ferry is greater and always has been greater than the legal requirement set forth in the Santa Fe compact, which the upper basin must not withhold from the lower basin. Therefore, planned diversion in the lower basin, including the two Arizona diversions referred to in the hearings, one being the Gila project, may safely be met up to the quantity of 75,000,000 acre-feet of water passing Lee Ferry in any 10-year period. More than that amount has always actually passed Lee Ferry in the driest 10-year period. The sponsors of the bill-and this is my own personal opinion as author of the bill-contend that determination of the plain intent of existing law requires no judicial decision as to what Congress meant in 1928, nor is a tri-State compact needed, after the enactment of the California Limitation Act of 1929, to |
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] : |