OCR Text |
Show -7- The association desires an allocation of water greatly in excess of any that could be made and leave water available for other California interests which can not be ignored. The allocation embodied in the contract is in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of the Division of Water Resources of the State of California, who made an investigation and submitted findings at my request, and is adopted as being fair and equitable to all concerned. The allocation made to the district is regarded as sufficient for its legitimate requirements. As to the economic objections made by the Protective Association and the Coachella Valley Landowners' Association, it should be pointed out here that the maximum annual payment to the United States (commencing fifteen years after construction is completed) will be 3% of $38,500,000, or $1,155,000, assuming that the project costs the maximum authorized. As the District now has assessment-paying land in excess of 450,000 acres, the maximum per acre annual charge would be less than $3.00, even if no new lands are added. Actually, an ultimate acreage of about 1,000,000 is expected. As to Coachella, the matter is one of necessity in view of the area's dependence on pumping from a rapidly falling water plane. Imperial also faces a necessity which cannot be reckoned solely in terms of cost. It is under court injunction to remove its temporary diversion works, and permanent works to replace them will run into many millions. Further, a silt-removal cost in excess of $500,000 annually to the District and in a probably larger amount to the individual farmer will be materially lessened when Hoover Dam's desilting effect comes into operation. Entirely aside from power revenue, savings in silt costs, savings from the alternative requirement of new diversion |
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. |