OCR Text |
Show - 26 - of the Act already set forth, by again seeking to exempt Arizona water rights from the Compact apportionment, a point that need not be discussed again, contains the key which unlocks and explains the countless irregularities and illegalities which the proffered contract contains. By this paragraph Arizona waives any intention to "interfere by litigation or otherwise with the construction, operation or maintenance of any such dams or works," meaning dams or works connected with the delivery of water by the Government at points down the River, in return for 2,800,000 acre feet annually of free water. It is almost beyond belief that Arizona would ask 2,800,000 acre feet of water free of charge from a project costing the Government so many millions of dollars and yet not expecting to share, along with other contract holders for water and electrical energy, in the reimbursement of the Federal outlay. If other contract holders pay, why should not Arizona? Should not the attitude of the Government continue to be "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute"? The Government established in Arizona v. California, et al., supra, its clear right to enter Arizona under the Project Act, the constitutionality of which was based by the Court upon the Congressionally asserted improvement of navigation, and build the dam and appurtenant structures. PARAGRAPH 16 OF THE ARIZONA CONTRACT: Here Arizona has the United States agreeing that, if the two parties so desire, they may submit to arbitration any and all controversies arising out of the Contract. That contract contains paragraphs violating the rights of the Upper States as hereinbefore set forth, yet controversies arising between the Government and Arizona, even presumably over those paragraphs, Arizona would contemplate submitting to arbitration! Arbitration is not judicial inquiry and settlement according to law. Very frequently it is a designed-and conscious departure from |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |