OCR Text |
Show -33- basis of 4,200,000 acre-feet to California there had not been fully discussed and fully appreciated the fact that there was probably a million acre-feet subject to capture which, under the compact, was allocated to Arizona and to California, so that if 4,200,000 acre-feet were awarded out of the 7,500,000 there would be an additional 500,000 acre-feet out of this 1,000,000 acre-feet which, under the compact, was to be allocated to the two States, so California in the aggregate would get 4,700,000 acre-feet? Mr. Bratton. That is true if the estimated surplus actually exists. At the same time, Arizona would get her 3,000,000 acre-feet agreed to by the governors as her just share of the allocated water, plus 500,000 acre-feet, being one-half of the unallocated surplus, so that while California would get 4,700,000 acre-feet Arizona would get 3,500,000 acre-feet. The surplus to which the Senator from Utah refers would be equally divided between Arizona and California. Neither State would get an advantage by reason of the division of the surplus. [70 Cong. Rec. 382-87 (December 10 (calendar day, December 11), 1928)] Mr. Hayden. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the Senate, that I may discuss the parliamentary situation as it exists and what I may do, if possible, to remedy it, in order that the amendment1 offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Phipps] may be perfected. As I understand the situation, the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Phipps] is an amend- 1Supra, pp. 30-31. |
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. |