OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS Exhibit No.18.22 Identification: AUS..S..J357 Admitted: AU.G....9.-.1957 Extract From Hearings Before House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 2903, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924)-(Second Swing-Johnson Bill). [pp. 1759-60] Mr. [Stephen B.] Davis. The situation would be simply this: Say the flow of the river was 18,000,000 acre-feet, for the sake of argument; you would have 2,000,000 acre-feet which was not covered by the compact. It would be subject to appropriation by either the upper or the lower basin, in the course of its natural development. I see nothing in the compact that says that could not happen. Mr. [Carl] Hayden. Then the compact is not to be construed as a limitation of the use of the waters of the Colorado River system to 16,000,000 acre-feet, and a prohibition of use, in either basin, of any quantity above that, the result of which would be that the water would go to Mexico ? Mr. Davis. Absolutely not. I suppose that would work out this way, Mr. Hayden: That assuming that these apportionments had been completely used, 7,500,000 acre-feet to the upper and 8,500,000 acre-feet to the lower basin, and there were a couple of million acre-feet left over; and then the people of the upper basin appropriated |
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. |