| OCR Text |
Show X-50 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS 4 Ltr. to Mr. Erwin N. Griswold, Subj: Present Perfected Rights As evapotranspiration for any given crop is essentially the same on all of these projects, the most practical and equitable way to evaluate "reasonable use" is to relate it to diversions. Moreover, the only practical control of reasonable use is by controlling day-to-day diversions. For irrigation this can be accomplished through a system of water scheduling based upon the timing and amounts of water required to replenish the depleted moisture in the plant root zone plus such additional water as required for (1) leaching so as to maintain salt balance and/or (2) to attain a reasonable irrigation efficiency. Part 417 of 43 Code of Federal Regulations contains departmental instructions whereby determinations may be made annually as to the quantity of water reasonably required for beneficial use by each contractor for Colorado River water. To assure uniform consideration among the claimants of present perfected rights under Article VI of the Decree and as a basis of reaching agreement, the claims based on irrigation have been described in the proposed stipulation in terms of diversion rights. The claims based on domestic, municipal, and industrial uses and listed in the proposed stipulation are located physically along the river similar to the Federal establishments listed in Article II of the Decree, and are described with the same dual limitations. The Federal establishments listed in Article II(D) included a number of Indian reservations. The Solicitor's office of this Department has expressed the opinion that while irrigation has been used to quantify the water rights for these reservations, the Indians' use of the water on the reservation is not limited to irrigation. In fact, many of the tribes plan to use the water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and recreational uses. Therefore, the dual limitations for these reservations and for the domestic, municipal, and industrial uses in the proposed stipulation are consistent. For convenient reference there is attached a tabulation comparing the rights claimed under Article VI by Arizona, California, and the United States when claims were filed with the Court in 1967, and the rights to which the parties are now prepared to stipulate. |
