OCR Text |
Show A36 APPENDIX 205 Question 10. What is the estimated quantity of water which constitutes the undivided surplus oj the annual flow of the Colorado River and may the compact be construed to mean that no part of this surplus can be beneficially used or consumed in either the upper or the lower basins until 1963, so that the entire quantity above the apportionment must flow into Mexico, where it may be used for irrigation and *hus create a prior right to water which the United States would be bound to recognize at the end of the 40-year period? (a) 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. (b) The right to the use of unap portioned or surplus water is not covered by the compact. The question cannot 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, or which recognizes any Mexican rights, the only reference to that situation being the expression of the realization that some such rights 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. Question 11. Is there any possibility that water stored by dams in the tributaries of the Colorado River in Arizona, such as the Roosevelt Reservoir, on the Salt River, or the San Carlos Reservoir, on the Gila, might, under the terms of such a treaty, be released for use in Mexico to the injury of the water users of the projects for whose benefit such dams were constructed? I cannot conceive of the making or the ratification of a treaty which would have such an effect. If it were possible to believe that the Federal Government would treat its own citizens with such absolute disregard of their property and rights, I presume that they would receive ample protection even as against the Government, under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. It must be remembered that the United States now has a large financial interest in the projects already constructed. It is not to be presumed that action will be taken detrimental to these interests. Furthermore, each of the seven States directly concerned has two |
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] : |