OCR Text |
Show -58- Mr. Hoover's answer to that question was: The unapportioned surplus is estimated at from 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 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. Assuming that each basin should reach the limit of its allotment and there should still be water unapportioned, in my opinion, such water could be taken and used in either basin under the ordinary rules governing appropriations, and such appropriations would doubtless receive formal recognition by the commission at the end of the 40-year period. There is certainly nothing in the compact which requires any water whatever to run unused to Mexico, nor which recognizes any Mexican rights, the only reference to that situation being the expression of the realization that some such right may perhaps in the future be established by treaty. As I understand the matter, the United States is not "bound to recognize" any such rights of a foreign country unless based upon treaty stipulations. So Mr. Hoover, who was the chairman of the commission which made the compact, expresses it as his opinion that surplus and unappropriated waters above the allocation in the compact are unaffected by the compact, and are subject to appropriation in any State. I think that is not only a very important interpretation of the compact, but it is a sane, logical, and legal conclusion. Mr. King. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. Hayden. I yield. Mr. King. Does the Senator interpret the compact to mean that if there is any unappropriated water in addition to the 1,000,000 acre-feet referred to in the compact, that that is subject to the same disposition or division as the 1,000,000 acre-feet? |
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. |