OCR Text |
Show 420 REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT Chairman Murdoch:. Mr. Carson, I want to ask you a few questions. We are approaching the hour for closing. You can be here tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock? Mr. Carson. Yes. Chairman Murdoch:. It has been suggested by witnesses, and it is a suggestion within the recent report of the Bureau of Reclamation on the Colorado River development, that there ought to be an apportionment of water to each State which the Santa Fe compact did not make. Mr. Carson. Yes. Chairman Murdock. Especially is that desirable among the lower basin States, I believe. Mr. Carson. Yes. Chairman Murdock. It has been suggested here that there ought to be steps immediately taken to authorize a tri-State compact. How do you feel about that? Mr. Carson. There is plenty of authority in the Boulder Canyon project act for a tri-State compact. We have tried to make it. Failing to get an agreement with California, we have now arrived at the point where we have agreed with California, according to the terms of the Colorado River compact, and California lias agreed with the United States expressly for the benefit of the State of Arizona, as to its limit of use, and we, for Arizona, have agreed for the benefit of California with the United States that we concede California's right to use water up to the extent of her limitation, so the division has been made in the lower basin States just as effectively as though we had been able to make a compact straight across the table between us. It is now made in the lower basin. If California will live up to the Colorado River compact and the California Limitation Act, and we live up too, as we will, in Arizona, to our commitments, then an interstate agreement between California and Arizona is not necessary to a division of the water in the lower basin because we in Arizona recognize that the right of Utah and New Mexico, who are in the lower basin, to come out of our share, and we both recognize the right of Nevada. Mr. White. What is Nevada's tentative share ? Mr. Carson. 300,000 acre-feet. She has a contract for that with the Secretary of the Interior to which we have all agreed, and we expressly in our contract agree to that for Nevada. Chairman Murdock. We might as well dispose of this one idea, that it is not necessary for the Congress now to pass a law to permit the lower basin States to enter into compacts. It is constitutionally necessary for Congress to pass such a law for State compacts, but in this case that was authorized by the act of 1928; was it not? Mr. Carson. Under the act of 1928. Under that act the upper basin States are going to have a meeting on the 22d to work out another compact. Mr. White. What is the amount covered by the California limitation? Mr. Carson. 4,400,000 acre-feet of III (a) water, plus a part of the surplus or water unapportioned by the compact. Mr. White. Then under the terms of the contract how much for Arizona? Mr. Carson. 2,800,000. |
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] : |