OCR Text |
Show under those instruments would affect the present contract which by law aust be subject to them. Accordingly I suggest, and Mr. Stinaon concurs, that the following words be added after Article ll(e) as It now stands: "except to the extent that the obligation of the United State* to deliver water hereunder may be held to be modified upon definitive judicial construction of these rights in connection with the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the Colorado River Contact, both of which, as set forth In Article 18 hereof, by law control this contract." I think It essential, in order to remove any doubt upon the power of the Secretary to execute the proposed contract, that some such provision be included. The exact language is not Important so long as the substance is there; I would be willing to make very large concessions as to wording in order to avoid offending Arizona's sensibilities. I suggest also, and Mr. Stinson agrees, that it would be better to substitute in the last line of Article ll(e) as it now stands in the draft contract, the word "unaffected" In place of the word "unimpaired." The latter word implies a confirmation, and we do not mean to confirm any rights but simply to say that we do not affect them in any way. Subject to the above the contract is within the authority of the Secretary to make. 5. I do not approve the draft letter which has been written for the Secretary's signature, for two reasons. (a) It seems to me more artistic and more lawyerlike to enclose with the letter a copy of your opinion as to the illegality of the provision, hitherto proposed, to dispose of the accumulated water. (b) I do not think it desirable to suggest, as the draft letter suggests, the possibility of a different decision as to the accumulation feature. After all the Secretary is submitting the opinion of his legal advisor and .he should not in the same breath look to the incorrectness of that opinion. The Secretary should not with the same breath rely on the opinion "pd discredit it. too. Wiener, Icitor. |
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] : |