OCR Text |
Show CZTikak Hon. Clifford H. Stone, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver, Colorado. 25, D. C Dear Judge Stone This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 8, enclosing « copy of your memorandum of that (date to Banners of the Coaalttae of Fourteen, regarding the proposed contract with Arizona and discussing Utah's proposed amendment to paragraph 7(g). Utah's proposed amenment baa been carefully considered* I an reluctant to delay this natter but I would be unable to recommend acceptance to the Department of Utah's proposed amendment la its present form. We would have no objection to Utah's proposed amendment, however, if tha words "and thr United States" aro deleted in tha first line of the second sentence and an ••¦ Is added to tha word recognise/ In making that the words "and the United States" be deleted I wish to reiterate tho Department's position, stated at the Phoenix meeting and again at tha recent mooting with tarn subcomittee, that tha (felted States does not propose In any contract with Arizona to resolve any lamia mm to tho amounts of water to which Arizona or California are entitled under tha terms of tho Colorado River Compact or to tha amounts of water that any of tha Colorado River states are antltlad under tho terms of the Colorado River Compact. For tha United States to adopt Utah1* request that the United States recognize that Utah's equitable share of water apportioned by the Colorado River Compact to tho lower basin is not less than 150,000 aero fast par annum wold be a deviation from this Department1* announced policy. In this connection, X question tha correctness of Utah16 assumption, as stated la General Giles' letter to you, that tha United States in contrcting-with California and Nevada and In the proposed contract with Arizona, is recognizing the rights of those states to specific amounts of water under the Colorado KIT' r Coapaot. Svery ooKtrast tha Sesrotary has aedo under Seetlon 5 or tha Boulder Canyon Project Ast, and tha proposed eontraot with Arisona., apesifioailr prorides Uwt the deUvery of the aaounte of wntar stated la the oontrRot 1» aubj-ot to the aT.JO*biHty thereof lader the prowisions of the Oslorado Hiwer Ooapect sad the Boulder Canyon rrsjeet Act. 2a Tiew of the foregoing, I mb oonfideat thnt the OUh repreaamtatlTes will not Insist that the reference to the United Btntes ba retained la their proposed aaandeant to para«reph 7(g). |
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] : |