OCR Text |
Show have received a latter from Mr. Charles A. Carson of Arizona, addressed to Coanissioner Page, requesting that representatives of the Bureau attend the ¦eeting of the Coon&ttee of Sixteen at Phoenix on .May 3. In reply to ray-telegraphic inquiry, Ur. Carson advised that this meeting would nrobably last too to four days. I have advised Mr. Carson that the Chief Engineer or someone representing Wjb, Assistant Chief Counsel Clifford r. Fix, and TUstriot Counsel Mahard J. Col fey, will attend the meeting as representatives of the Bureau. In ?law of your instructions governing the Bureau's representatives at the Santa Pe Meting, and slnee this proposed contract to be discussed in Phoenix on Hay 3 is indirectly related to the international question regarding Colorado River water, I believe that the Bureau's representatives should have instructions from yon to govern their action at the Phoenix meeting. A proposed contract between the United States and Arisona was the subject of considerable controversy in 1934, culminating in a full-dress hearing before you personally, with Congressional and other representatives of each of the Basin States participating. That controversy naa contemporaneous with the difficulties we had in constructing Parker Dan- The contract then proposed did not receive favorable consideration due in larpa part at least to the objections of the six states which had ratified the compact. The situation has changed considerably in the last year or so. The State of Arisona has contingently ratified the cowDact, the contingency being execv'ti-T. and ratification by the Arisona State T«rislat-ure of a water contract between the United States and Ariiona, The State of Arisona through its present governor and through Senator Hayden is making sincere efforts to rid itself of its bitter feelings growing out of the past controversy and to appro*oh its Colorado River problems in a realistic manner. I believe that the Bureau's representatives should be instructed that they say discuss at the meeting terms and provisions of a proposed contract, being oareful to state openly at the meeting that they are not authorised to cossait either the Bureau or the nepartrasnt to any position excepting thlsi On the basic issue of how much water from the Colorado River Arisona nay take in accordance with the Colorado River Compact, the Bureau and the Department refuse to take a position, and refuse to side either with or against Arisona, the Bureau and the Department taking the view that the United States on this issue is in a position analogous to a stakeholder. I am advised by counsel that this is the appropriate legal position for the Bureau and the Department. Furthermore, as a practical and political -natter, it would be most unhappy if tiw Bureau or Department should be drawn into taking sides in the controversy. I would like to have the Bureau's representatives consider tlie desirability of their suggesting at the meeting consideration of a possible contract arrangement whereby the basic issue would be presented in the contract, with carefully guarded language saving the United States from taking a position on the issue. |
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] : |