OCR Text |
Show -13- paratively wet years in succession have made it possible for the San Diego water-supply system to withstand the current overdraft, but the essential character of the naval and other military installations in the vicinity precludes tempting fate further. An aqueduct over either route would have value at the conclusion of the war emergency and would present the opportunity to provide a permanent benefit to the entire local community. The extent of the value and the permanent utility would be more certain with regard to route 2 owing to the absence of the complication introduced by the necessity for an agreement by the local agencies with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California when route 1 is considered. Since the out-of-pocket cost and the drain on manpower, critical materials, and equipment, as well as the time factor, are much smaller for route 1 than for route 2, we favor route 1. The construction of either aqueduct as an emergency measure should provide for a capacity of 50,000,000 gallons per day, and tunnels and other permanent structures should be built to the full ultimate size (100,000,-000 gallons per day), provided that the bidding on the project indicates an increase of cost no greater than would warrant this action. The increase in cost of the installation herein proposed (50,000,000 gallons per day) would be approximately 20 percent additional when compared with an installation to meet only the existing war emergency requirement (25,000,000 gallons per day). An emergency installation to meet only the existing war needs would provide no margin of safety as to capacity. Finding No. 4.-Because of the importance of its establishments and activities in the area and their relation to the winning of the war in the Pacific, the Federal |
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. |