OCR Text |
Show which ah© believes can be developed by waters of the Colorado River, we have agreed to that, with the only condition that It be within the California limitation, which, Mr. Secretary, is binding upon California. It Involves the honor and integrity of the sovereign state and people ,of California, and which, Mr. Secretary, if you please, it? binding upon the United States for the benefit; of the other states in the basin. Now, I have touched upon the point made by Mr. Shaw ad to any ambiguity in 7(b). There is no ambiguity, and I think in one of these meetings that Mr. Shaw himself said that there oouid be no possibility of any confusion or overlapping on actual deliveries of water. As to language, it is amply protected by Article 10 of this contract, which reserves to California, as well as to us, and again, Mr. Secretary, California is not a party to this, nor bound uy a word in it - but we reserve to California as to ourselves "This oontract shall not impair the right of Arizona and other states and the users of waters therein to maintain, prosecute or defend any action respecting, and it is without prejudice to, any of the respective contentions of said states end water users, as to (1) the intent, effect, meaning and interpretation of said compact and said act; (2) what part of any waters used or contracted for by any of them falls within Article -* Apparently the page numbers were erroneously marked by the reporter. There is no page numbered 23. [Footnote by California counsel.] |
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] : |