WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002198 24 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. beginning of the discussions and negotiations which led to the Project Act, Arizona consistently claimed that she must have sole use of the Gila, upon which her existing economydepended." Arizona's claim was supported by the fact that only she and New Mexico could effectively use the Gila waters, which not only entered the Colorado River too close to Mexico to be of much use to any other States but also was reduced virtually to a trickle in the hot Arizona summers before it could reach the Colorado. In the debates the Senators consistently acknowledged that the tributaries-or at least the waters of the Gila, the only major Arizona tributary-were excluded from the allocation they were making. Senator Hayden, in re- sponse to questions by Senator Johnson, said that the California Senator was correct in stating that the Senate had seen fit to give Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet in addi- tion to all the water in the Gila.'. Senator Johnson had earlier stated, "[I]t is only the main stream, Senators will recall, that has been discussed," and one of his arguments in favor of California's receiving 4,600,000 acre-feet rather than 4,200,000 was that Arizona was going to keep all her tributaries in addition to whatever portion of the main river allocated to her.'. Senator Johnson also argued that Arizona should bear more than half the Lower Basin's Mexican burden because in addition to the 2,800,000 acre-feet allotted her by the Act she would get the Gila, which he erroneously estimated at 3,500,000 acre-feet.Bo Senator Pittman, who had sat in on the Gov- ernors' conference, likewise understood that the water was 61 E. g., Report, Colorado River Commission of Arizona (1927), reprinted in Hearings on H. R. 5773, supra note 25, at 25-31; 69 Congo Rec. 9454 (1928) (Arizona's proposal at Denver). 6.70 Cong, Rec. 467-468 (1928). See also id" at 463-464, 465. 6. Id., at 237. BO I d., at 466-467.