WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002G46 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PROBLEMS 49 65 percent of thc whole 3.4 million. California, receiving 4.4 mil. lion altogether, is getting 900,000 acre-feet, or less than 27 percent of the incremental stored water, in addition to her present per- feeted rights. Nevada's 200,000 is just under 9 percent of the 3.4 million aere-feet of stored water." The secretary told the committee that he is prcparing regulations to promulgate a shortage formula. It is difficult to see how he can announce one which conforms to the decree until present perfected rights have been determined, or one which gives Arizona a greater share of the stored water-that is, thc incremental stored water, the" amount remaining available" in the decree language-when the supply diminishes, than the 65 percent of it that she receives when the supply is full. Wc think that a proper formula must protect existing uses. (Emphasis added.) 12 Mr. Ely's analysis may be summarized as follows: SUMMARY OF SOURCE OF ENTITLEMENT (Assuming supply of 7.5 million acre-feet) Oalifornia .4rizona Present perfected rights (e::;timated)_._. _ 3,500,000 600,000 Share of incremental snpply_______________ 900,000 2,200,000 Nevada 300,000 'rotal ------______________n_________ 4,400,000 2,800,000 300,000 Thus, it can be seen that with a full river supply of 7.5 million acre- feet the relationship of incremental supply to present perfected rights is as follows: A.ll State.. Present perfected rights____________________________ 4,100,000 Incremental supply ______ ___.______________ __________ 3,400,000 Total ___n____________________________________ 7,500,000 Thus, as a matter of fact, should the supply in thc river amount to 7.5 minion acre-feet a year, California is receiving %4ths or 26 percent of the incremental stored water. Arizona, on the other hand, is receiving 2%4 ths or 65 percent of the incremental water and Nevada is receiving %4 ths or 9 percent of the stored watcr. This analysis shows that California, if it receives a supply of 4.4 mil- lion acre-feet, gains little over its 1929 present perfected rights and the major share of Arizona's supply is that developed by the major projects on the river constructed since 1929 and paid for in great measure by Californians. This committee does not believe a shortage formula or proration should be used. However, if proration were to be adopted, a formula based on Mr. Ely's analysis is the most acceptable to this committee. The master's formula is manifestly unfair. Under the shortage formula suggested by Mr. Ely, the supply to California would be based on 26 percent of the incremental supply. Unless this minimum formula is utilized, California's share would bc proportionately less under conditions of shortage than with a full river. l:} Hearings on S. 1658, Part II, ap. cU" at 499, 500,