OCR Text |
Show COMPACT----ANALYSIS BY HERBERT HOOVER Table of Colorado River acreage A33 Acreage irrigated 1920 New acreage Total acreage Lower basin: Arizona ......... .__......____________________ 507, 000 450,000 5,000 640, 000 490,000 35,000 1,147,000 940,000 40,000 California ......______ . Nevada ________________________ Total ......______.......... 962,000 1,165, 000 2,127,000 Upper basin: Colorado - _________......______ 740,000 34,000 359, 000 367,000 1, 018, 000 483, 000 456, 000 513,000 1, 758, 000 517,000 815, 000 910, 000 New Mexico _ _________________........- Utah Wyoming .....________ Total ...... 1, 500, 000 2, 500, 000 4, 000,000 Question 3. Why was Jfi years fixed as the time for a future apportionment of the surplus water of the Colorado River? There was a decided conflict between the States over the period to be fixed in this paragraph, based chiefly on their ideas as to rapidity of development and actual use of the water. Some desired a shorter and some a longer time. Suggestions were made varying from 20 to 60 years. The 40-year period was finally arrived at as a common point of agreement. Judging by experience under other projects- the Imperial Valley and Salt River Valley, for instance-the full development of contemplated construction, as shown in the table following question 2, will take a much longer time than the one fixed. Question 4- Why was the term "Colorado River system" used in paragraph (g) of Article III, wherein 7,500,000 acre-feet of water is apportioned to the upper and lower basins, respectivelyt This term is defined in Article II as covering the entire river and its tributaries in the United States. No other term could be used, as the duty of the commission was to divide all the water of the river. It serves to make it clear that this was what the commission intended to do and prevents any State from contending that, since a certain tributary rises and empties within its boundaries and is therefore not an interstate stream, it may use its waters without reference to the terms of the compact. The plan covers all the waters of the river and all its tributaries, and the term referred to leaves that situation beyond doubt. 77831-48- -15 |
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] : |