OCR Text |
Show "Mr. CARSON. ... In Arizona we are using a little in excess of the 1,000,000 acre-feet apportioned to the lower basin by article Ill(b) of the Colorado River compact. That means, then, as I see it-and this is the only place this has any application, as I say again-of the over-all basin use in the entire lower basin, we are limited by the compact to 8,500,000 acre-feet. We having used 1,000,000 acre-feet of Ill(b) water, or any other water of this apportioned water out of the Gila in Arizona, then it must follow, it seems to me, that the uses in the other States are part of the apportioned water; whether you call it Ill(a) water or Ill(b) water, it limits the use in the lower basin of the apportioned water. Therefore, as Mr. Baker will show you, when we are figuring our water supply in Arizona, we deduct from that which is deliverable to us as a firm right at Boulder or Lake Mead any excess over 1,000,000 acre-feet that we ourselves use of the Gila, that which is used in Utah and New Mexico, and our 2,800,000 acre-feet is reduced to that extent. "What that means in that reduction is that the water is delivered at Lee Perry and Lake Mead, which we have said is our firm commitment is reduced, and the amount of water deducted then becomes part of the surplus, part of which could be utilized in California and part in Arizona . . . . "1/ Mr. Carson!s theory of Arizona1s rights under the 1944 contract and the Compact was graphically illustrated by a water supply and demand tabled submitted by R. Gail Baker, reclamation engineer for the State of Arizona. Gila Project Hearings at 433-34. Id. at 463. III-114 |