AZ vs. CA:25 California Exhibits, Vol. XXV; Nos. 7501-7859

page 8

After the Denver meeting, Judge Stone, the Chairman, submitted to the Secretary a draft of contract approved at the Denver meeting by the Committee of Fourteen by a vote of 6 to 1, California casting the dissenting vote. In submitting the proposed contract he stated that before adjournment of the Denver conference the Comaittee approved the following proposals: (1) that the Chairman of the Committee appoint a subcommittee of three to participate, to ouch an extent as may seem advisable, in the proceedings before the Secretary for the negotiation of the contract} and (2) that the Committee be accorded the privilege of reviewing the contract as negotiated and before it is finally approved. The Secretary advised Judge Stone that both of these proposals were satisfactory to the Department. Judge Stone appointed, in addition to himself, Ur. Carson representing Arizona and lr. Shaw representing California as the subcommittee. The proposed contract i»s carefully considered in the Bureau and a number of modifications were made, including the provision for a charge for the delivery of water. District Counsel R. J. Coffey and I met with the subcommittee in Denver on October 12. At an extended conference the changes requested by us, and other changes made at the conference were accepted. At a meeting of the Committee of Fourteen in Denver on October 30, the contract as modified was approved by the Committee, California again dissenting* The contract has now been submitted by the Chairman of the Committee, recommending its approval. The hearing on February 2, as you know, was granted at the request of the Governor and Attorney General of California. (6) Comment on California's objections. I have not had an opportunity to make a detailed analysis of California's objections, nor do I believe, for the purposes of this memorandum, that such an analysis is necessary. I will comment briefly, however, upon the more important points raised by California. The brief is divided into two major parts. The first part (B - pp. 12-36) purports to establish that the proposed contract, in some particulars, in prejudicial to California, and the second part (C - pp. 36-56) endeavors to establish that the proposed c ontract would be void. California first contends (B - I, pp« 10-17) that Article 7(b) of the proposed contract by inference defines the maximum of 2,800,000 acre feet referred to in Article 7(a) as III(a) water, and thus viok tea the sense of the so-called "Phoenix Treaty." If such an inference could be drawn, which I doubt, I fail to see how California would be prejudiced in my way. Article 10 is purposely designed to prevent Arisona, or any other state, from contending that the proposed contract resoly es e.ny issues on the amounts of water which are apportioned or unapportioned by the compact. It expressly provides that the contract shall not impair the right of Arizona and other states and the users of nater therein to maintain, prosecute or defend any action respecting, and is without prejudice to. any of the respective contentions of said states and water users as to (1) the intent, effect, meaning and interpretation of the compact and act; (2) what part, if any, of the water used or contracted for by any of them falls within Article Til (a) of the compact} (3) what part, if any, is within Article II(b)j and U) what part, If any, is excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the contract. Nor does Article 7(b) contradict Article 10U). Article 7(b) does not purport to define what part, if any, is excess or surplus water. It provides simply that the Secretary will deliver to Arizona its share of the excess or ,7