OCR Text |
Show On this set-up, this would leave diversions out of physical water present in the main stream, as follows: Acre-feet California .................................................................................. 5,500,000 Arizona ...................................................................................... 3,900,000 Nevada ...................................................................................... 300,000 Mexico ...................................................................................... 800,000 10,500,000 Objection to this proposal was made by California upon the ground that it would not give California sufficient firm or title water for estimated future needs, and that Arizona was getting a much larger diversion than she could use profitably, consumptively, and beneficially in the next 50 years. In answer Arizona replied that she, as well as other upstream States, had to protect her people against appropriation by a lower State; that the water unused would be available for California; and that even if used there would be for all time a reurn flow to the main stream. All engineers who discussed the problem agreed that for the next 50 years there would be available 10,500,000 acre-feet of water or more, and that the only question would arise at the expiration of that period. It was said that if there is not available for 50 years or more 10,-500,000 acre-feet for use in the above diversion, then it is of no use talking about building the dam, because power could not be generated to pay for building the dam and California could not take up the deficiency by,a charge for storage of water to the Metropolitan Water District because the added price of storage and the cost of creating additional power at the dam site to pump the water over the hill to the Metropolitan area would make |
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. |