WSP09662

• 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

6

-

;
does take jurisdiction, the issues before the Court would notl
, I
become so involved that it would necessitate the appointment I
I
I
,
,
I

of a Master.

We pointed out the three differences of opinion
existing between the two states:

isn I t of too much concern to the Upper Basin .

No.1: Is III (b) water--so-calXed III (b) water
I
. " I
under the Compact-~apportioned water? If it is apportioned I
, I
water, then California by its Self-Limitation Act is preclude~
, I
from claiming the right to use any part of :tha t water; and we :
I
point out that the Supreme Court in' a case ,alreadY decided didl
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
stream made I

say'that that was apportioned water.

That :i8 No.1; that

No. 2 is a ques tion of a defini ti'on of the phrase,
, '

~

"benefioial consumptive uselt.

Arizona's po~ition is that

, ,
beneficial consumptive use is the depletion' of the
,

by man, and that we should not be charged w1th the use of
salvaged water.
We point out in the Complaint thap that was the
particularly important question on the Gila: River. The Gila
River, which is a part of the system of the: Colorado, of

I
course, in its natural stage, virgin condition, without any
dams, would have emptied into the Colorado River approximatelY
1,200,000 acre-feet of water a year, that is, if there were
I

no dams in the Gila or any of its tributaries. Actually, by
building a series of dams in the upper part'of the Gila '
River and its tributaries, Arizona uses water that would never
have reached the Colorado River. That water would have been
,