OCR Text |
Show REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT 421 Mr. White. Did you say 300,000 for Nevada 1 Mr, Carson, Yes; the total would be 7,500,000. Mr. White. Where is this 1,000,000 extra? Mr. Carson. It was apportioned to the lower basin. We figure that We are using it in Arizona on the Gila River. Mr, White. I understand that half of the water that is coming into the ldWer basin is 7,500,000 acre-feet. Chairman Murdock. Half of the apportioned water at Lee Ferry by arti61e Ilia of the compact. Mr. White. I am talking now about the original compact. Mr. Carson. That is right. Mr. White. That is divided, in turn, into 4,400,000 feet. That is the limitation California sets for itself. Mr. Carson. Yes. Mr. White. Then by contract between Arizona and the Secretary of the Interior, 2,800,000 feet go to Arizona ? Mr. Carson. Yes. Mr. White. And 300,000 feet, to Nevada? Mr. Carson. Yes; or a total of 7,500,000 feet. Mr Phillips. I am not so sure but what I could not clear up this argument by continuing your question right there, Mr. Chairman. May I ask the witness something ? Now, Mr. Carson, do you consider the Gila and the tributaries to the Gila as part of the Colorado River system? Mr. Carson. Yes; they are in the definition of the compact. Mr. Phillips. I would like for you to classify these things for me. Perhaps it will help me. Do you classify, under the Colorado River compact, the perfected rights on the Gila River system-the Salt River that I asked about and the San Carlos and other projects-do you classify those as part of the 7,500,000 acre-feet of III (a) water? Mr. Carson. No, sir; because you are overlooking entirely III (b) water, an additional 1,000,000 acre-feet. The apportionment to the lower basin made by the compact is not 7,500,000 acre-feet; it is 8,500,000 acre-feet. Ill (a) water is 7,50Q,000 acre-feet, and III (b) water is 1,000,000 acre-feet, so we have a total apportionment of 8,500,000 acre-feet. California has limited itself to 4,400,000 acre-feet of III (a) water and one-half the surplus, and has excluded herself from III (b) water. Mr. Phillips. Then, if you do not classify that as III (a) water, you are classifying it as III (b) water. If it is not III £a) water, how do/you classify it ? You said that you did not classify it III (a). Mr. Carson. Ill (b). Mr. Phillips. All. right, how. Arizona claims 2,800,000 acre-feet. How much of that do you ciaim from the main stream ? Mr. Carson. 2,800,000 acre-feet. Chairman Murdock. Some of that goes to Utah and some to New Mexico. Mr. Carson. With the deductions that we will show by the engineers. Mr- Phillips. How much do you claim ? You spoke of a court case that you had. How much of the use of the water from the Gila River did Arizona claim in the litigation against California ? Mr. Carson. I do not know which case you are talking about, Mr. Phillips. |
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] : |