OCR Text |
Show 112 the Report of the Senate Committee which studied the Colorado River Storage Project and potential reservoir construction in the Upper Basin. That Report estimates that future Upper Basin consumptive use will not exceed 4,800,000 acre-feet per annum (depletion of the flow at Lee Ferry would be less), even if the extensive storage capacity envisaged but not as yet authorized for the Upper Basin were eventually constructed.41 Other unsupported assumptions on which the Erickson and Stetson studies are based include the manner in which the reservoirs will be operated by the United States in the future,42 and the extent of the delivery obligation imposed on the states of the Upper Division under Article III(c) of the Colorado River Compact.43 The very great significance of each of these assumptions to the prediction of future supply is demonstrated "Senate Report No. 128, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (195S), p. 4. See also House Report No. 1087, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955), p. 6. After the close of oral argument on the Draft Report, California moved to re-open the trial for the taking of evidence on the expected future depletion of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry by the Upper Basin. None of the other parties supports this motion. It is clear that the extent of such future depletion will depend primarily on the action of Congress in authorizing new projects in the Upper Basin, see pp. 114-115, infra. It would not prove useful to take evidence on this issue. The only probative evidence as to what action Congress may take in the future is the reports of congressional committees such as the ones referred to in this footnote and other official congressional documents. It is not necessary to conduct a trial to enable the Special Master or the Supreme Court to take cognizance of such documents. Moreover, it would not be expedient to make a finding as to what Congress may or may not do in the future. Therefore, California's motion is denied. 42The smaller the amount of water which is kept in storage in a reservoir, the less that is lost to evaporation and spillage, but the greater becomes the risk of inadequate storage to meet future needs. It is impossible to determine how the United States will strike a balance between these competing considerations in the operation of the Colorado River reservoirs in the future. 43 In the absence of the Upper Basin states this delivery obligation cannot be determined in this case. |
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 |