OCR Text |
Show 103 1. The evidence will not support a sufficiently accurate prediction of future supply to determine the effect of the recommended decree on existing uses in California The evidence in this case simply does not permit a prediction of future Lower Basin supply with that refined degree of accuracy necessary to show whether existing California uses can be satisfied from the percentage of future supply apportioned to California. On the contrary, the mass of evidence which has been presented shows only that the science of hydrology is not capable of sustaining a prediction accurate enough to shed light on this question. California contends that future Lower Basin mainstream supply will not exceed 5,850,000 acre-feet per annum and that the proposed apportionment to California will result in severe curtailment of her existing uses. Since California deducts evaporation and channel losses to arrive at her estimate of 5,850,000 acre-feet, this quantity seems to refer to water available for diversion at the various diversion works along the mainstream. Even assuming that such a supply would result in this curtailment,26 a supply sufficient to satisfy 7,667,770 acre-feet per annum 26The supply of available water in the Colorado River has in the past been substantially larger than the demand for it; in short, every project received all the water it requested. In such circumstances it is not surprising that a great deal of water has been wasted, as is apparent, for example, from the very large unused runoff each year into the Salton Sea. Undoubtedly when and if water becomes scarce in this area, its use will be regulated much more efficiently than at present. It appears that such practices as lining canals, reducing over-ordering of water, re-using runoff water, reducing evaporation, and improving channels can be instituted in the future and will effect a substantial reduction in the amount of water needed to satisfy existing California uses. It is impossible to determine exactly how much more efficiently water will be used if the present condition of abundance turns into one of shortage, but it is clear that savings will be such that California's existing uses could be satisfied by substantially less water than is presently diverted. |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial 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 |