OCR Text |
Show COMPACT----ANALYSIS BY HERBERT HOOVER A35 deliver the 75,000,000 acre-feet each 10 years at Lee Ferry. Their undertaking in this respect is separate and independent and without reference to place of use or quantity of water obtained from any other source. On the face of this paragraph this amount of water must be delivered even though not used at all. The obligation certainly can not be diminished by the fact that Arizona obtains other water from another source. The contract is to deliver a definite amount of water at a definite point above the inflow of various important tributaries, and I find nothing in the compact which modifies this obligation, except the general limitation as to use, which is hereafter referred to. Question 8. As a matter of fact more than 1,000,000 acre-feet of water from the tributaries of the Colorado below Lee Ferry are now being beneficially used and consumed within the State of Arizona. Will the excess above that amount be accounted for as a part of the 7,500,000 acre-feet first apportioned to the lower basin from the waters of the "Colorado River system1' as provided in paragraph (a) of Article III? By the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b), Article III, the lower basin is entitled to the use of a total of 8,500,000 acre-feet per annum from the entire Colorado River system, the main river and its tributaries. All use of water in that basin, including the waters of tributaries entering the river below Lee Ferry, must be included within this quantity. The relation is reciprocal. Water used from these tributaries falls within the 8,500,000 acre-feet quota. Water obtained from them does not come within the 75,000,000 acre-feet 10-year period flow delivered at Lee Ferry, but remains available for use over and above that amount. Question 9. Does paragraph (c) of Article III contemplate a treaty between the United States and the Republic of Mexico under which one-half of a deficiency of water for the irrigation of lands in Mexico shall be supplied from reservoirs in Arizona? No. Paragraph (c) of Article III does not contemplate any treaty. It recognizes the possibility that a treaty may, at some time, be made and that under it Mexico may become entitled to the use of some water, and divides the burden in such an event, but the quantity to which that country may become entitled and the manner, terms, and conditions upon which such use may depend, cannot be foreseen. It is a certainty that no such treaty will be negotiated and ratified which is unfair to the United States or any State or detrimental to their interests. To discuss whether or not a treaty might be made under which Mexico might be permitted to receive water impounded in a reservoir which may be constructed, is to indulge in speculation, but it is safe to say that if such a situation should result it will be only under conditions fair and satisfactory to all parties concerned. |
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] : |