OCR Text |
Show -27- In addition my amendment provides- and that the use by California of the excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River compact shall never exceed annually one-half of such excess or surplus waters. A similar provision is found in the committee amendment, and a similar provision is found in the recommendation of the governors, that the excess or surplus water be divided equally between the two States- and that the limitations so accepted by California shall be irrevocable and unconditional, unless modified by the agreement described in the following paragraph, nor shall said limitations apply to water diverted by or for the benefit of the Yuma reclamation project for domestic, agricultural, or power purposes except to the portion thereof consumptively used in California for domestic and agricultural purposes. That last phrase appears in the amendment as a sort of supercaution, so to speak. There were those who feared because the water used for irrigation upon the Yuma project in Arizona was first diverted from the Colorado River in California, carried for some distance in that State, and conveyed into Arizona by a siphon which goes under the Colorado River, that unless specific mention was made of the fact, California, because the water was diverted in that State, might be charged with water used in Arizona. Of course, we had no intention of doing anything of that kind and protected that point accordingly. I have read what California is required to do and how that State is limited. Let me now tell the other side of the story, as it appears in the amendment. The said ratifying act- That is, the ratifying act of the Legislature of California- shall further provide that if by tri-State agreement hereafter entered into by the States of California, Nevada, and Arizona the foregoing limitations are accepted and approved as fixing the apportionment of water to California, then California shall and will therein agree (1) that of the 7,500,000 acre-feet annually appor- |
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. |