My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06768
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
19000-19999
>
WSPC06768
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:07:44 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:04:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
2/28/1955
Author
Elmer Bennet
Title
AZ Vs CA - Legal Documents 1958-1965 - Excerpts from Hearings on S 500 - Statement of Elmer Bennet - 02-28-55 through 03-05-55
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />U01870 <br /> <br />The upper division states have the right to impound water for gen- <br />eration of electricity subject to the provisions of the compact, in- <br />cluding the provision that agricultural and domestic purposes are <br />specifically made dominant purposes under the compact. <br /> <br />Article IV(b) of the compact states as follows: <br /> <br />Subject to the provisions of this compact, water of the Colorado <br />River system may be impounded and used for the generation of the <br />electric power, but such impounding and uses shall be subservient to <br />the uses and consumption of such water for agriculture and domestic <br />purposes and shall not interfere with or prevent use for such dominant <br />purposes. <br /> <br />Now the language of IV(b) is not limited in any way whatsoever so <br />far as one division of the basin is concerned. It is a provision <br />which applies equally to the upper division and the lower division. <br />It establishes a paramountcy of water uses, a paramountcy which is <br />given to domestic and agricultural purposes. That was established <br />policy under reclamation law from the beginning of its origins and <br />also was embodied in the State laws of, I believe, every state in the <br />basin. <br /> <br />There is nothing new or unusual in the words of this article IV(b) <br />of the compact. It was not intended in any way whatsoever, in our <br />judgment, to impose some new and novel limitation on the use of the <br />waters of the Colorado River in the upper division. <br /> <br />We do not and cannot interpret the language in that way. <br /> <br />There is no limitation whatsoever in that language as to where <br />power might be generated in the river. There is no mention whatsoever <br />of either of the divisions of the basin. It is a provision which <br />applies equally to the two divisions. <br /> <br />Article III (a) of the compact apportions exclusive beneficial con- <br />sumptive use of 7~ million acre-feet per annum to each basin. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCHEL. Is that your interpretation, there is no question <br />in your mind that 7,500,000 acre-feet are allocated to the upper and <br />lower basin annually. <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. I would say this: The apportionment in article III (a) <br />of the compact is an apportionment to both basins equally and on a <br />parity, subject only to limitations and restrictions as reasonably <br />interpreted from other provisions of the compact. <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.