Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0018'75 <br /> <br />to the lower-division States would depend entirely on whether the <br />lower-division States could make a showing that the waters available <br />in Lake Mead would not reasonably meet the domestic and agricultural <br />purposes for which water was needed. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCBEL. And assuming that showing could be made, then <br />you would unhesitatingly say that water would flow through Lees <br />Ferry? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. In my personal opinion, I think that is right, sir. <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCBEL. Would your answer be the same if the flow in that <br />year period had been 7~ million acre-feet at the time the demand <br />was made and could be reasonably shown as necessary for agriculture <br />and domestic purposes? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. At that point I would want to reserve judgment. <br />The bill requires that the releases be made in accordance with the <br />Colorado River compact. <br /> <br />At that point you might well have a conflict between the reasonable <br />requirement of the upper basin for storage to meet the lO-year commit- <br />ment under article III (d) and lower-basin uses of surplus, as referred <br />to in article III (f) and III (g) of the compact. <br /> <br />Now at that point I would not want to give you an unqualified <br />answer. The question of what is meant by "surplus" is obviously in <br />litigation between Arizona and California, surely. <br /> <br />There are a number of statements in the supporting materials with <br />reference to the Colorado River Compact which indicate that this <br />compact does not create any vested rights, itself, so far as uses of <br />surplus waters are concerned, whatever that term "surplus" might <br />mean in the connotation that it has under the provisions of article <br />III (f) and article III (g) of the compact. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCBEL. Could you and the department give the committee <br />an opinion in answer to those questions? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. I think the opinion on those questions, sir, would <br />probably have to come from the Department of Justice, in view of the <br />litigation before the Supreme Court. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCBEL. ~.,ould you say that an answer to them was relevant <br />to a discussion of the bill before us, S. SOO? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. I would say not, Senator Kuchel. Our engineers <br /> <br />12 <br />