Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002202 <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA, <br /> <br />may have 4,400,000 acre-feet of that water. It fol- <br />lows logically that if that demand is to be conceded, <br />as everybody agrees, the remainder is 2,800,000 acre- <br />feet for Arizona: That settles that part of the <br />controversy." 75 <br /> <br />On the same day, Senator Pittman; intimately familiar <br />with the whole water problem,'. summed up the feeling <br />of the Senate that the bill fixed a limit on California and <br />"practically allocated" to Arizona her share of the water: <br /> <br />"The Senate has already determined upon the divi- <br />sion of water between those States. How? It has <br />determined how much water California may use, and <br />the rest of it is subject to use by Nevada and Arizona. <br />Nevada has already admitted that it can use only an <br />insignificant quantity, 300,00 acre-feet. That leaves <br />the rest of it to Arizona. As the bill now stands it <br />is just as much divided as if they had mentioned <br />Arizona and Nevada and the amounts they are to <br />get. . . . <br /> <br />"As I understand this amendment, Arizona to-day <br />has practically allocated to it 2,800,000 acre-feet of <br />water in the main Colorado River." 77 <br /> <br />"Id., at 467. See also id" at 465. <br />76 For example, Senator Pittman's active role in resolving the whole <br />Colorado River problem was acknowledged by Senator Hayden on the <br />Senate floor: <br />"When Congress assembled in December, 1927, no agreement had <br />been made. The senior Senator from Nevada [MR. PITTMAN], in <br />continuation of the earnest efforts that he has made all these years <br />to bring about a settlement of the controversy between the. States <br />with respect to the Colorado River, inviteq. a number of us to con- <br />ferences in his office and these we talked over the situation." Id., at <br />172. <br />77 Id., at 468-469. <br />