WSP09503 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SENATOR McFARLAND. That will take some time. We will want to go into that somewhat in detail, Mr. Chair- man. Maybe it would be better for us to pass over that, if we are going to recess before long. SENATOR DOWNEY. Mr. Lowry, I understand from the testimony which you have given to this committee that you think that Mexico would have as good a treaty as is here proposed if the treaty were changed to give Mexico the return flow and these other items which you have mentioned, plus approximately 400,000 or 500,000 acre-feet of fresh water? MR. LOWRY. You said you believed Mexico would have as good a treaty. Were you asking that question of me? SENATOR DOWNEY. I say to you that under your statement Mexico would have just as good a treaty if, instead of being allocated l,500,OOO acre-feet of water, she were allocated in the treaty all of the return flow and these other items that you have mentioned, plus an additional 400,000 or 500,000 acre-feet. MR. LOWRY. The next statement that I was about to make indicates that that leaves a residual of about 375,000 acre-feet to be supplied from the main stream." P. 239 to middle of P. 240: "MR. LOWRY. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I concluded with a statement regarding the return flow that is expected down and available to the lower river. The figure, in- cluding desilting water and unused Gila flow, was 1,130,000 acre-feet. That leaves a residual of about 375,000 acre-feet to be supplied from the main stream, that being the amount which it is proposed to deliver to Mexico through the All-American Canal. Such an amount may be considered as the minimum that will have to be supplied from upstream, since in the event no Gila flood- water is available, the total quantity required will be increased by 100,000 acre-feet. SENATOR McFARLAND. Did you say "minimum"? MR. LOWRY'. That minimum to be supplied from upstream would be the difference between the 1,130,000 acre-feet and the 1,500,000 acre-feet. -21-