OCR Text |
Show 518 REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT Mr. Carson. I am going back to this proposal, if I may, for a moment, with Mr. Rockwelrs statement in mind. Mr. Rockwell, no matter whether you consider this III (b) water, to be Gila water, or part of this 8y2 million acre-feet in the lower basin, it is very clear in my mind that the III (b) water is apportioned to the lower basin, and was water bearing that identical relationship to the Gila River water that I mentioned before, and to which you have addressed your question. I think that is clear, now. It is apportioned to the lower basin, as is likewise the 7y2 million acre-feet of III (a) water, so it makes the apportionment to the lower basin 8y2 million acre-feet. Now, California, by her limitation act, has agreed that her use can never exceed 4,400,000 acre-feet of this 8y2 million acre-feet, plus one-half of whatever surplus or excess is in the river over and above the' Sy2 million feet apportionment to the lower basin. So, taking that view of the thing, then, Arizona is entitled to 3,800,000 acre-feet without in any way infringing upon the California limitation. That still leaves 300,000 feet for Nevada. Of this 3,800,000 acre-feet, we take-and this is the source of the supply likewise-apply that to the Gila River 1,000,000 acre-feet which leaves us out of the main stream 2,800,000 acre-feet. But by those two quantities, 2,800,000 acre-feet, and the million acre-feet, Arizona has reached her limit of consumptive use of apportioned water under the compact, and under the California Limitation Act, California cannot be heard to complain because she agreed with the United States by a solemn, statutory agreement made, as I say, in the most solemn way an agreement could be made involving assurances of one State to the United States, and to her sister States. That agreement was made in terms irrevocably and unconditionally for the benefit of the State of Arizona, as well as other basin States. And it is on that limitation or solemn agreement that California can never use more than 4,400,000 acre-feet of the water apportioned to the lower basin, plus not more than one-half of the surplus, that we relv, TIT J I believe. Moreover, I think we should apprehend that it is a pure question of mathematics; 8y2 million acre-feet as your total; 4,400,000 acre-feet to California; less 300,000 acre-feet for Nevada; leaves 3,800,000 acre-feet for Arizona. If you take those three figures away from Sy2 million feet, you should come down to zero. Then, Mr. Baker has told you that under any of these figures of flow there is ample storage in Boulder Dam to regulate the river and provide a steady flow of water to the projects that are described in this bill; that is the Gila-Wellton project, and the Yuma Mesa Well-ton-Mohawk. |
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] : |