OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS Exhibit N0.I.3..7.I Identification: A.U..G...5....J957 Admitted: Extract From Hearings Before Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. Res. 320, 68th Cong., 2d Sess. (1925). [pp. 393, 402] Statement of G. E. P. Smith, Professor of Irrigation Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson. • • • • Mr. Smith. We are certainly very desirous of such an agreement. I do not think, however, that there can be any possible advantage in holding a conference of the three lower basin States for the purpose of dividing the small water supply allotted to us in the Santa Fe compact. A three-State conference should be held just as quickly as possible, and prosecute this matter as fast as possible, to plan the development of the lower river. But as far as dividing the 8,500,000 acre-feet allotted to the lower basin among those three States is concerned, it is as hopeless as the old lady's scheme of mopping up the Atlantic Ocean. If you take from the 8,500,000 acre-feet 2,500,000 acre-feet of the Gila River, you have left only 6,000,000. Another million will be lost by evaporation and charged against the lower basin. About 600,000 will be used by the Little Colorado and Virgin and Yuma projects. California needs about 6,000,000 acre-feet, and there will not be enough to supply that, let alone allowing a single acre-foot for development from the main stem of the Colorado River in Arizona or Nevada. |
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] : California exhibits. |