OCR Text |
Show -2- power distribution has already been agreed upon; that is out of the way. The two power provisions, which I offered in committee as an amendment to the bill of the Senator from California [Mr. Johnson] and which were reported out favorably by the Senate committee, were also reported out favorably by the House committee and are now included in the House bill as it comes over here. Those provisions satisfied Nevada and those provisions satisfied the people of Arizona. So we have nothing but a question of the division of water that separates the two States. Nevada is not complaining about water; she has always accepted the little handful of water that has been given her; but when we assembled at Denver the governors of the four upper Colorado River Basin States, trying to reconcile the difference on water between California and Arizona, finally made this proposition: Acre feet of water. California.................................................................................. 4,200,000 Arizona...................................................................................... 3,000,000 Nevada......................................................................................... 300,000 How did they get at that? Under what is called the seven-State agreement we find this clause in Article III: (a) There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River system in perpetuity to the upper basin and to the lower basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist. In other words, those State governors believed that there was only 7,500,000 acre-feet of water to divide, and they proposed to divide it, as I have said, 4,200,000 acre feet to California, 3,000,000 acre-feet to Arizona, and 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada. California said, "We can not possibly do with that amount of water; we must have 4,600,000 acre-feet in- |
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. |