OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER Phoenix, Arizonza, May 24, 1997 Nathan argold Solicitor Department of the Interior Washington, D. C( Joel David Wolfsohn, secretary of Boulder Dam I ower Contracts before Secretary of Interior lakes, has wired asking me to telegraph you any comments on bill you have been requested by California congessional representatives to help draw and which they intend to sub-mit to house rivers and harbors committee, which bill reduces interest rataa provided by -Section 8, Paragraphs, (B) and (D) of Boulder Canyon Project Act and present power contracts made pursuant thereto from four to three paraantum par annum, defers interest payments, ate. He stated the bill doen not at this time bear approval of aaoratary of the interior The Boulder Canyon Project Act la controlled by tha Santa Fe Colorado .River Compact which Arizona has rajaotad since 1923, and whan congress paaaad said not despite Arizona ^ refusal to ratify the compact, Arizona was compelled to file suit in United States supreme court which held Arizsona la not bo nd by said compact, Boulder ot or dam and that Arizona's present and future rights would not be impaired thereby. 1 suggest that tha new bill should rapudiate the compact and t).a California-UeTada---rlzotia Tri-State Compact* Otherwise Arizona la compelled to protect against. this bill and all ooiVyynilMw adverse to Arizona operating thereun er including present Boulder ^ul»n contracts subject to the compact which if Arizona. had been bound thereby would have caused eventual dissolution of this state. All of Arizona'a present used and future watera would be Impaired by the compact since any and all surplus water thnt the upper basin states do nut use and which surplus will include all waters ,givren to then by tha compact will eventually return to the lower basin states and Mexico but Arizona by tha compact la prohibited fron its uao. The aurplua over and above the aggregate <River the upper and lower basins la also given by the compact to 2,0OO,CKX) acres owned by California land syndicates in Mexico. California by Section «(*) of the Boulder ot and the limitation act pursuant thereto passed by its 1egislature in 1989 has limited itself and Mexico to 8,400,000 aere feet plus one-half of the surplus or practically the whole river leaving out of the compact allotrownt to tha lower bueln 2,800, X)0 nore foet to /o-iaoni wjiioh for future use would leave #.riiona 700,000 nere feet ieaa t^«n nothin ¦ p.a -rl»one already uaea 3, i»oo,oOO norm foet. In addition to tUn, >rl*ona oy the oo^pnot la trf |
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] : |