Conclusions

Document: "Conclusions", 1961-1969, page 23. The Supreme Court decision in the case Arizona v. California, et al, does not increase the water supply of the area. It does, however, resolve the conflicting claims and entitlements of the several states to Colorado River water in the lower basin. Thus it provides a basis for development of a comprehensive plan to solve the water needs of the Pacific Southwest. 4. Arizona urgently needs the waters to which it recently acquired the right to divert from the Colorado River under the Supreme Court decision, otherwise or it will face a slowly withering economy as present water supplies diminish. Southern California, as a result of the Supreme Court decision, will have to curtail its Colorado River diversions and will face the same diminishing water-supply problem that Arizona faces today. Western New Mexico needs upstream water conservation and control facilities to expand its historically water restricted economy. Southern Nevada requires additional water to provide for its phenomenal population growth. Southern Utah needs water conservation and control facilities to overcome seasonal shortages of surface water. 5. The precepts under which the Department of the Interior has historically acted have never encouraged the development of one area to the detriment of another. The diminishing of an existing economy, or the retared development of another, carries nationwide implications. In the Pacific Southwest, defined for the purposes of this study as portions of each of the above five states -- each dependent to some extent on the Colorado River -- it is incumbent upon the Secretary of the Interior in any plan of regional to develop and implement a regional water development plan to preserve and protect and promote the economy and interests of all the affected states. -2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,506,481 byte