Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />001820 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />supply is prospectively abundant and consequently, it says, <br /> <br /> <br />the question whether main stream rights have priorities need <br /> <br />not be determined. <br /> <br />Arizona would apparently impose a more severe burden <br /> <br /> <br />on the upper basin than would Nevada. Arizona presented in <br /> <br /> <br />evidence an engineering study1l by Mr. John Erickson of New <br /> <br /> <br />Mexico, based on legal assumptions supplied by Arizona counsel, <br /> <br /> <br />which showed an upper division contribution of 75,000,000 acre- <br /> <br /> <br />feet (the III(d) obligation), plus an additional amount of <br /> <br /> <br />l,280,000 acre-feet of water per year to be delivered by the <br /> <br /> <br />upper division at Lee Ferry for Mexico. Arizona counsel later <br /> <br /> <br />stated that this was not the position of Arizona,g( but on <br /> <br /> <br />June l, 1959, Arizona apparently disclaimed her disclaimer. <br /> <br /> <br />She called attention to her Exhibit 350 which shows her <br /> <br />assumptions as to the Mexican burden and cited this as a reason <br /> <br /> <br />why determination of the lower basin's water supply is "neither <br /> <br /> <br />necessary nor Possib1e.ll~ The United states proposes a finding <br /> <br /> <br />based on the Erickson study.~ <br /> <br />11 Arizona Exhibits 350, 358. <br />g( Transcript, p. 2l,840. <br />~ Arizona Answering Brief, pp. 67, 71. <br />~ United States Finding 11.2, p. 239. <br /> <br />32. <br />