AZ vs. CA:25 California Exhibits, Vol. XXV; Nos. 7501-7859

page 6

APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lowest flow of any 10-year period in the recorded history of the river. By pointing to the flow of that 10-year period and by clever manipulation of legal language it might be shown to one not carefully observing that there was not enough water in the river to meet all of the legal requirements. However, considering all existing projects and proposed projects in the lower basin, requiring a firm allotment of water, it is only necessary to ask whether 75,000,000 acre-feet during any 10-year period have passed Lee's Perry, plus enough to meet any new commitment such as the Mexican Treaty, to find whether there is such a shortage. Now, it will be observed that during the 10-year period from 1931 to 1940 inclusive more than 100,000,000 acre-feet of water actually passed Lee's Ferry, in spite of depletion above, and that was the very lowest 10-year flow in its recorded history. Looked at thus there was no shortage. It is plainly evident that in this lowest 10-year period that there was more than enough to meet the requirement of the Santa Pe Compact for the lower basin and for the Mexican Treaty and all other firm commitments, allowing 2,800,000 acre-feet annually out of the main stem of the Colorado for Arizona. Thus, their scarcity argument falls before a simple mathematical calculation. OPPOSITION CAUSING LOSS OF WEALTH The greatest inconsistency of the opposition, resulting in vast national loss, lies in the claim that there is a shortage of water in the Colorado River for American uses in the very face of the physical fact that from 9,000,000 to 10,000,000 acre-feet of that water during the past 5 years has annually gone out of the lower basin across the international line to Mexico. When that fact is called to the attention of opposition witnesses they say that such is "surplus water" to which the upper basin States have a firm right but which they are not now using beneficially, because less than 3,000,000 of the 7% million acre-feet of the waters allotted to the upper basin is presently being utilized. Of course, their answer in that respect is partly right but really fallacious, because it would account for less than half of the water now being wasted to Mexico. It is my opinion that not less than 2,000,000 acre-feet of that water now being wasted to Mexico as just described belongs in firm supply and legal apportionment to Arizona lands. It is a conservative estimate that 1 acre-foot of water in 12 months applied to land in southern Arizona will produce $20 worth of cash crops. Please note that figure, 1 acre-foot of water applied yearly in that region equals $20 in cash products. The record of the great irrigation projects in Arizona for many past years will amply verify that such is a conservative estimate. If I am right, as I believe I am, that at least 2,000,000 acre-feet of Arizona's water, over and above any treaty commitment to Mexico, is flowing annually across the international border, that means that $40,000,-C00 worth of wealth is annually flowing out of the apex of that funnel to Arizona's loss and the Nation's loss. Yet the opponents of this legislation are very reluctant to permit 600,000 acre-feet of such water in consumptive use in Yuma County, Ariz., as called for in H. R. 5434. Looking beyond the scope of this bill and considering the 10,000,000 acre-feet of water which flows across the international border often in 1 year, we get some impression of the price we are paying, for what? We are paying it in small part for a good-neighbor policy, but in large part for a policy of blindness which is difficult to understand.