OCR Text |
Show Comments of the State of Arizona EXECUTIVE OFFICE respective States. I agree that it is now possible and desirable that allocation be made by subcompact to the State House respective States in the upper basin where no allocation phoenix, ariz. as between them has yet been made by compact, contract, or otherwise, apportioning among them the yl/z November 22, 1946. million acre-feet of water per annum which is appor- Mr. William E. Warne, tioned to them jointly in perpetuity by the Colorado Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, River compact. To that end I joined in a request that Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. a Federal representative be appointed to assist in nego- Dear Mr. Warne: We in Arizona have reviewed the tiations between the upper-basin States of an upper-basin Colorado River comprehensive report on the develop- compact, subordinate and subsidiary to the Colorado ment of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin River compact. for irrigation, power production, and other beneficial Arizona is participating in such negotiations for the uses in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New reason that a part of Arizona is in the upper basin as Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, by the United States defined by the Colorado River compact. It is hoped Department of the Interior, under the supervision of that an upper-basin compact will be negotiated and the Bureau of Reclamation, dated March 1946, Project submitted to the various State legislatures for ratifica- Planning Report No. 34-8-2, together with your letter tion and to Congress for approval within a reasonable of June 6,1946, addressed to the Secretary of the Interior, time in view of the complex nature of the problems as suggested in your letter of June 13, 1946, to me. involved. The report constitutes a very great contribution to- The apportionment among the States of the lower ward the progress, development, and welfare of the basin of the water apportioned to the lower basin by the Colorado River Basin and discloses that a very thorough Colorado River compact has been effected by the Colo-investigation has been made of possibilities of develop- rado River compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, ment in the basin. I desire to congratulate the Bureau the California Limitation Act, the Mexican treaty, the and its personnel on the success achieved in the very contract between the United States and the State of difficult work which it is apparent from the report has Arizona, the contract between the United States and the been performed. State of Nevada, and the contracts between the United We view the report as an inventory of possible projects States and agencies of the State of California, within the basin and as such we consider it most helpful. The Colorado River compact (art. Ill (a) and (b)) We understand that there are listed alternative proj- apportions to the lower basin 8^4 million acre-feet of ects so that in many instances, if one project listed is water annually in perpetuity. In consideration of the constructed, such construction may ultimately eliminate passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and its be- another listed project, and we take it as a general propo- coming effective, the Legislature of California adopted sition that as to many of the projects listed further inves- the California Limitation Act (ch. 16, California Stats. tigation and detailed reports will be necessary before the 1929), as required by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Bureau of Reclamation is in a position to recommend which limits California's use of water of the Colorado authorization for construction of such projects. River irrevocably and unconditionally, and for the bene- I believe that it is now possible and very desirable fit of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, for each of the States in the Basin to recommend for and Wyoming, to 4,400,000 acre-feet of the Sl/2 million construction projects within that State for which the acre-feet apportioned to the lower basin, in perpetuity, stream-flow depletions will assuredly be within the allo- for use each year by the Colorado River compact, cation of Colorado River water which has been made to Of the Sl/2 million acre-feet apportioned to the lower that State, or which will be made to that State. basin there is thus left 4,100,000 acre-feet which cannot I note the suggestion that the States should now agree lawfully be used anywhere except in Arizona and Ne- upon allocations of specific quantities of water to the vada and those small parts of New Mexico and Utah |
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] : |