OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS Exhibit No. 1825 Identification: Aug. 9, 1957 Admitted: Aug. 9, 1957 Extract From Debate on H. R. 5773, S. 728, S. J. Res. 164 and H. Res. 208 (Fourth Swing-Johnson Bill), 70th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. [70 Cong. Rec. 460 (1928)] [Mr. Hayden.] . . . . If the Senator from Utah is interested in an interpretation of the meaning of surplus unapportioned water, I might well read to him an answer to a question I addressed to Mr. Hoover shortly after the compact was written. I asked Mr. Hoover: What is the estimated quantity of water which constitutes the undivided surplus of the annual flow of the Colorado River and may the compact be construed to mean that no part of this surplus can be beneficially used or consumed in either the upper or the lower basins until 1963, so that the entire quantity above the apportionment must flow into Mexico, where it may be used for irrigation and thus create a prior right to water which the United States would be bound to recognize at the end of the 40-year period ? Mr. Hoover's answer to that question was: The unapportioned surplus is estimated at from 4,000,000 to 0,000,000 acre-feet, but may be taken as approximately 5,000,000 acre-feet. He referred to the unapportioned surplus in both basins. The right to the use of unapportioned or surplus water is not covered by the compact. The question can not arise until all the waters apportioned are appropriated and used, and this will not be until after the lapse of a long period of time, perhaps 75 years. |
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] : California exhibits. |