Laserfiche WebLink
<br />17 <br /> <br />se~se: In the hearings on the second <br />Aqueduct, the Commission made it very <br /> <br />, <br />barrel of the San Diego <br />I <br />clea~ that aocording to <br /> <br />its calculations, the diversions for that ~econd barrel--and <br />, <br />I <br />quite possibly the diversions to the full extent of the <br />, <br />I <br />capacity of the first barrel, but certainl~ this was true <br />I <br />with respect to the seoond barrel--would exoeed the uses to <br />, <br />I <br />whioh California was entitled under the 1922 Compact in the <br />, <br />, <br />light of the priority agreement entered in~o by oertain <br /> <br />California entities. <br /> <br />I <br />We said then and we made it very 10 lear-"i t is part <br />I <br />of the printed reoords of the Congress and !of the hearings <br />, ' <br />I <br />on that bill--that therefore in conneotion :with the seoond <br />I <br />barrel, without question there was a doubt las to the legal <br />I <br />availability of water. We pointed out tha~ a doubt as to the <br />I <br />I <br />legal availability of water for the purposel had arisen in <br />, <br />oonneotion with the Central Arizona Projeo~. And we said if <br />I <br />the Congress should pass the seoond barrel.lbill, there would <br />, <br />I <br />then be oreated an interesting preoedent whioh the Congress <br />, I <br />I <br />might,be faoed with in oonneotion with the Central Arizona <br />I <br /> <br />Projeot. <br /> <br />MR. MOEUR: We put an amendment in there in the bill <br />I <br />I <br />that speoifioally provided that should be o,harged against <br />I <br />I <br />California's uses of water, the effeot of wpioh would have <br />I <br />been to take that away from some 5th or 6th! priority, and <br />probably Imperial and that water that they propose to irrigate <br />I <br />, <br />the East and West Mesa with. Off the ranrd. (Disoussion off <br />the reoord.) <br />