| OCR Text |
Show UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Branch of Project Planning JKK:HLC Customhouse Denver 2, Colorado ^ g m5 From Director To Regional Counsel, Los Angeles, California. Subject: Water available from Colorado River for Central Arizona Projects -Lower Colorado Basin. 1. I appreciate very much your letter of April 27, 19A5- but am not so sure that I understand the conclusions in view of the peculiar wording of paragraph 3» "Under the terms of Article 7(d) Ariaona would not necessarily be charged with total diversion by it above Boulder Dam." Perhaps a simple illustration will assist me in understanding your meaning. You will recall, in the present draft of Colorado Basin Report, it has been assumed that annual diversion of 2,000,000 acre-feet to Central Arizona would be made at Bridge Canyon Dam site, which is located on the Colorado River upstream from Lake Mead. Our report also assumed that of the water diverted from the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon 500,000 acre-feet annually would return to the Colorado River below the Imperial Dam. 2. In view of the conditions described above we have assumed that the charge under the Arizona contract for the diversion to Central Arizona would be determined by the formula "Diversion minus return flow" and hence would be 1,500,000 acre-feet. 3. Article 7(d) contains the phrase "diminish the. flow into Lake Mead." It is apparent from the conditions described in paragraph 1 that the project assumed in the basin report would diminish the flow into Lake Mead by 2,000,000 acre-feet. I now raise the questions: Is our previous assumption of 1,500,000 acre-foot charge against the Arizona contract a proper one for this diversion? Should the Arizona contract be charged with 2,000,000 acre-feet since that is the amount by which the assumed diversion would diminish the flow into Lake Mead? 4. For my own peace of mind I would appreciate your consideration of these questions and such replies, comments, or observations as you are inclined to make thereon. J. R. Riter. CC-J.R.Hiter. / (CC-H.A'.Bashoi e,Commissioner, Buieau of Reclamation,tfashington By D.O.) 017 |
| 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] : |
