AZ vs. CA:12 California Exhibits, Vol. XII; Nos. 1350-1383; 1400-1446; 1501-1518; 1601-1603; 1701-1703

page 8

I am confident that without a compact, the States of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah can solve any questions which confront them in a legal and harmonious manner. CONCLUSION. I do not enthuse over an Asiatic colony in Mexico. I do not pine to contribute to the greater glory of Los Angeles and southern California at the expense of this Commonwealth. I am willing to concede certain needs and rights to the upper basin States where the majority of the water falls. I am willing to concede certain advantages to California. But I am not ready to make a donation of the great natural resources upon which depends the future prosperity of this great State of Arizona when we are not even offered the proverbial mess of pottage in exchange. The injustice of the Colorado River compact to Arizona is clearly demonstrated by the following tabulation showing the distribution of the water. Allocation of the water by the proposed Colorado River compact. Upper States Lower States Total water allocated, acre-feet, per year........ 7,500,000 8,500,000 Water used in 1920, acre-feet, per year............ 2,136,000 4,127,000 Additional allocated over present use, acre-feet, per year................................................ 5,364,000 4,373,000 Per cent allocated over per cent used per year 252 106 Allocation in case of drought, acre-feet, per year 7,500,000 What is left The above amounts are allocated "in perpetuity." Provision is made for allocating any surplus if available above these amounts in 40 years.