Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />< <br /> <br />Ou1794 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />which accompanied high farm prices during and after World <br />War II.1I <br /> <br />The competing projects in Arizona, Nevada, and Cali- <br />fornia are all going concerns, with insignificant exceptions. <br />The exceptions include the relatively small Dixie Project on <br />Utah tributaries, not yet authorized; some modest plans of New <br />Mexico on the upper Gila; some projects for alleged Indian reser- <br />vations on the main stream never irrigated and never inhabited <br />by Indians, the plans for which exist only in the form of red <br />lines on maps prepared by the Government for purposes of litiga- <br />tion; and finally some large and ambitious programs by Nevada. <br />Nevada's plans are not yet in any concrete proposal stage for <br />which authorization is sought, but they serve to illustrate what <br />might be done at some time in the future if water were available <br />and if financing and authorization could be secured. Except for <br />the Nevada claims, the contest in substance boils down to the <br />proposed Central Arizona Project versus existing main stream <br />projects. <br /> <br />The requirements of the existing California projects <br />total over 5,400,000 acre-feet per annum. If these California <br />projects were to realize their full potential, their water <br />requirements would be much larger, but their rights have been <br />scaled down to that figure as a result of the California <br /> <br />11 In 1941, 708,000 acres were irrigated in Arizona. In <br />1953, the total was 1,300,000 acres, about half of it in cotton. <br />Arizona Exhibit 136 in evidence. <br /> <br />6. <br />