OCR Text |
Show "We sinoerely hope that the rest of the interested partie* aooept our proposed revision of 7(g), We have not attempted to revise the draft as it affeots New Mexico beoause Mr. McClure seems to be satisfied as it is now constituted* "As you know, Mr, Wallaoe informed the Committee that he expeoted to leave Salt Lake City this ooming Sunday, November 7th, to be gone about three weeks. Doubt]e ssly you will desire to submit this proposed revision to all Committee members as -veil as the Department of the Interior. If it is aooeptable another meeting will not be necessary. If it i6 not aooeptable, however, you will, of course, keep me posted on the wishes of the Committee members concerning the next meeting". The amendment of paragraph 7(g) of the proposed contraot between the United States and the State of Arizona for the delivery of Colorado RIvar water, suggested by the Utah representatives on the Committee, reads as followsj "(g) Arizona recognizes the right of New Mexioo to an equitable share of the water apportioned by the Colorado River Compaot to the Lower Basin and also water unapporti oned by suoh oompaot, "Arizona and the United 3tates reoognize that Utah's equitable share of water apportioned by the Colorado River Compaot to the Lower Basin is not less than 150,000 aore-feet per annum, and that Utah also has an Interest in the water unappcrtior.it} by suoh compaot* "Nothing oontained in this contract shall prejudice the rights of suoh states". This letter and the proposed revision of paragraph 7(g) are self explanatory, Mr, Giles had called me by phone and I suggested that he send me a copy of the revision in order that I might submit it to all of the members of the committee. He does not mention the Nevada contraot in the foregoing quoted letter, but did tell me over the phone that Utah representatives would vote for approval of the proposed Nevada oontraot. If all of the members of the committee approve the revision of paragraph 7 (g), above quoted, then another meeting for the further consideration of the Arizona oontraot will be unnecessary. On the other hand, if there is an objection on the part of any of the representatives on the oommittee, I assume a further meeting will be necessary. Therefore, will each state, through one of its representatives, advise me at the earliest possible date the reaction to this suggested revision* -2- |
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] : |