AZ vs. CA:24 California Exhibits, Vol. XXIV; Miscellaneous

page A32

A32 APPENDIX 205 (c) The climate of the two basins is different: that of the upper basin being, generally speaking, temperate, while that of the lower basin ranges from semitropical to tropical. The growing seasons, the crops, and the quantity of water consumed per acre are therefore different. (d) The economic conditions in the two basins are entirely different. The upper basin will be slower of development than the lower basin. The upper basin will secure its waters more by diversion than by storage, whereas the development of the lower basin is practically altogether a storage problem. (e) The major friction at the present moment is over the water rights which might be established by the erection of adequate storage in the lower basin, as prejudicing the situation in the upper basin, and regardless of legal rights in either case. The States are now divided into two groups in opposition to each other legislatively, with little hope of the cohesion that is necessary before Federal aid can ever be secured. The use of the group method of division was therefore adopted both from necessity, as being the only practical one, and from advisability, being dictated by the conditions existing in the entire basin. Question 2. Was the apportionment in Article III of the compact between the upper and lower basins arbitrary or was it based on the actual requirements of each basin ? The apportionment was not arbitrary. It was based on a careful consideration of respective needs of the two basins. The data available was the estimates provided by the Reclamation Service, which follow, showing the total new and old acreage in the two basins, including not only all existing projects but all projects considered economically feasible and also those of doubtful feasibility and intended to cover every prospective development during the next 75 years. The commissioners and engineering staffs of the different States varied somewhat from the basic estimates of the Reclamation Service, and some compromise from these figures was agreed to by the commission to compensate in different directions. This was particularly the case with regard to the estimated consumption of water per acre. It will be noted that the total acreage in the lower basin, present and prospective, is given as 2,127,000, whereas that in the upper basin is given as 4,000,000. Therefore the amount of water depends partly on the consumption assumed per acre, and after general consideration an addition was made in each case to cover any possible mischances of calculation, the general addition being about 30 percent more than the probable use.