OCR Text |
Show -15- control of Congress and the Courts, an international super-government, has been for the most part, defeated. The result is that citizens who have projects in the United States will not be exclusively subject to the orders of this supergovernment, but will have available a substantial measure of relief at the hands of Congress and the courts. "The main issue of the treaty, the quantity of water allocated to Mexico, remains unchanged, although clarified. Three possible avenues of relief to California from the excessive allocation made to Mexico, should be noted. "1. The State Department engineers estimate that as much as 1,000,000 acre-feet of water furnished to Mexico will be "return flow," coming principally from projects in Arizona. California engineers estimate this return flow as low as 250,000 acre-feet, but the dependable supply from this source cannot be definitely known until the United States approaches full development of the Colorado River Basin. "2. It is conceivable that California may improve its position by pumping back to the river, return flow in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, which would otherwise flow into Salton Sea. If and when water becomes valuable enough in California to warrant the operation, it is possible to pump this return flow water back into the river for delivery to Mexico. The record before the Senate and the Senate Committee is reasonably clear that the intent of the treaty is that Mexico must take any water that comes to the boundary, whatever its quality may be. By pumping return flow water into the river, the net consumptive use in California would be pro tanto reduced, with the possibility of claiming an additional equal quantity from Boulder Dam. "3. The question as to what state or states must shoulder the Mexican burden is undetermined. It is possible |
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. |