My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09662
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09662
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:55:04 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:48:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.120
Description
Colorado River Basin States Committee (AKA Colorado River Compact Commission)
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
9/15/1952
Author
CRBSC
Title
Proceedings of the Meeting of the Colorado River Basin States Committee
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />5 <br /> <br />As set out in the proposed Bill of Oomplairit, which of course <br />is attached to this motion, we point out that the situation <br />is now different than that which existed when any of the <br /> <br />other cases were considered by the Supreme ,Oourt. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />For instance, just to hit the highlights, since the i <br />last case was before the Supreme Court, Arizona has ratified <br /> <br />the Colorado River Compac~. Arizona has secured from the <br />Secretary of the Interior a contract for 2,:800,000 acre-feet <br />of water per year from the main stream of the Colorado River <br />I <br /> <br />to be diverted either above or below Lake Mead. And for this <br /> <br />year, and last year, if you will read the qomplaint, you will <br /> <br />, <br />find there is a record of the diversions b~ Oalifornia; the <br /> <br />diversions last year amounted to approximately 4,500,000 <br /> <br />acre-feet, and according to their requests this year <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />they willi <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />divert in excess of 5,000,000 acre-feet. I <br />I <br />Now I think that becomes a matter' of concern to you I <br />, I <br />I <br />people up here because in all of these hearJngs, these differ-I <br />ent controversies, Oalifornia recently has maintained that <br />they have a legal rJght to divat and put to: beneficial con- <br />sumptive use, 5,362,000 acre-feet a year. ~hey are dJvertJng <br /> <br />somewhere near that amount this year. <br /> <br />, <br />And ,if they do dJvert <br /> <br />that and put Jt to benefJcial consumptive use, it may well be <br />that they may make some claims not only against Arizona but <br />also against other subsequent upstream users. <br /> <br />We spent a lot <br /> <br />, <br />attempted <br /> <br />I <br />That is about the sum and substance of this OomPlain~. <br />I <br />We I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />of time in preparing the Complaint. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />to narrow the issues so that if the Supreme Court <br />, <br />, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.