OCR Text |
Show 104 of consumptive uses in the Lower Basin would fulfill all of California's existing uses.26 Although it is impossible to determine exactly how much of a supply at the diversion gates is necessary to satisfy 7,667,770 acre-feet of consumptive uses, it will be approximately this same figure, i.e., 7,667,770 acre-feet of supply. This is so because consumptive use is defined as water diverted less return flow to the River which can be used by another project in the Lower Basin or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty. See pp. 185-187, 225, infra. Since consumptive use is all water diverted less return flow, and return flow becomes available for consumption once it returns to the mainstream, supply and consumptive use will be approximately equal. This means that a difference in the annual supply of less than two million acre-feet per annum (7,667,770 minus 5,-850,000) will mean the difference, even under California's reasoning, between complete satisfaction of all of California's existing uses and serious curtailment of those uses. This simply does not leave enough of a margin of error to make a prediction of future supply useful. On the basis of the evidence received in this case, I cannot determine with any confidence whether the future annual supply will be more or less than 7,667,770 acre-feet. Accurate determination of future supply in a stream system is difficult in any case,27 and is especially so in the case of the Colorado River. The reasons are not hard to discover. Determination of future supply is 26According to the evidence presented in this case, existing California projects presently consume 4,483,885 acre-feet of water per annum from the mainstream. See page 128, infra. This means, under the apportionment formula proposed in this Report, that a total supply of mainstream water sufficient to satisfy 7,667,770 acre-feet of consumptive uses in the Lower Basin per annum would satisfy all of California's present uses. 2TSee Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 593, 598-599, 604-605 (1945). |
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 |