OCR Text |
Show -6- The Engineering Committee has given some consideration to the extent of probable salvage in the Upper Basin. None of us know what it might be. We only know that in other river basins it has been a significant amount. It has varied in amount in accordance with the characteristics of the particular stream. We do know that there will be channel loss salvage of 200,000 acre feet up to 400,000 acre feet. That is in addition to the salvage on the land itself, in other words, the loss that Nature was causing on the land itself. I personally think the salvage will be substantially more than 400,00 acre feet but that is neither here nor there. We are dealing in principles rather than quantities. We are trying to determine what it was that was apportioned to the Upper Basin. The question has been asked: What is better for the Upper Basin regardless of principle? Let's disregard entirely what it was that the Compact Commission was apportioning, and consider what would be better for the Upper Basin from the standpoint of useable water first on the assumption that the Upper Basin has a right to deplete the virgin flow of the river at Lee Ferry by 7,500,-000 acre feet, and second on the assumption that the Upper Basin has only the right to deplete the flow of the river and the tributaries at the points of use by 7,500,000 acre feet. The Engineering Committee by request gave some consideration to that problem. Taking a most pessimistic viewpoint of three factors which would dominate the problem, the Engineering Committee came up with this conclusion: that if the virgin flow at the International Boundary were only 17,000,000 acre feet-(the Bureau estimated it at 17,720,000 acre feet)-if the channel loss salvage in the Upper Basin were only 200,000 acre feet, which seems to be the abso- |
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] : California exhibits. |