OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX J 303 As to California's Rights DANGER TO COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT 1. Did the Statutory Compact mean what it said in saying that California can use one-half of the excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River Compact, or was this an illusory promise, to mean nothing unless and until all seven states agree on an apportionment of surplus after 1963? That is what Arizona contends. If that is sustained, Arizona would strip California of 962,000 acre-feet, with the result that the Colorado River Aqueduct, whose rights are in large part junior to the old agricultural priorities, would be half dry. HOW BIG IS SURPLUS? ¦ 2. If California is entitled to appropriate, or contract with the United States for, "surplus," how big is the "surplus" of which California can use one-half? If it is two million acre- feet or more, the California contracts are well within it. This involves the question of how the uses of water are to be measured, i.e., by diversions less return flow or by main stream depletion; whether the million acre-feet of in (b) water is a part of the excess or surplus; and the classification of uses on the Gila River, which must be added into the total chargeable to the Lower Basin under the Compact. MEANING OF LIMITATION ACT 3. As to the 4,400,000 acre-feet, which the Limitation Act says shall be the quantity of m (a) water available "for use in California," measured by "diversions less returns to the river": Does this mean what it says, or does it mean "approximately 3,800,000 acre-feet" because, as Arizona says, the Act meant to say "44/75 of a net quantity represented by 7,500,000 minus reservoir losses"? If so, not only is the rest of the Metropolitan Water District's water gone, but California's senior agricultural priorities have less water than these districts owned in the natural flow before Hoover Dam was built. In short, California underwrote Hoover Dam and got it built, despite two filibusters and three lawsuits by Arizona, so that all the salvaged water could go to Arizona and Mexico. We don't think so. |