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

page 3

8OMLKX Ret Proposed contract between the United States and Arizona for the delivery of miter from Lake Mead for use In Arizona. * The attached letter submits for your approval and execution the proposed mater contract between the United States and the State of Arizona* The contract is proposed to be made under the authority of Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act -which authorises the Secretary to contract for the storage and delivery of -water impounded by Boulder Dam* Under the proposed contract the United States agrees to deliver annually from storage in Lake Mead a maximum of 2,800,000 acre feet of water, subject to its availability for use in Arizona under the provisions of the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and one-half of any excess or surplus unapportioned by the compact to the extent such -water is available for use in Arizona under the compact and act. The contract is conditioned upon the unconditional ratification of the compact by Arizona* The proposed contract -was drafted by the Committee of Fourteen after the Arizona legislature last spring passed an act contingently ratifying the Colorado River Compact-the contingency being the execution and ratification by the legislature of a contract for the delivery of water from Lake Mead. The Bureau made a number of modifications -which have been accepted by the Committee and Arieona. The proposed contract has been approved by the representatives of each of the Colorado River states, except California. The hearing on February 2 was on California's objections. California is fearful that Arizona may contend, to California's prejudice, that certain provisions of the proposed oontract amount to an administrative determination that Arizona is entitled to 2,800,000 acre feet of UI(a) water. California's fears are unfounded for at least two reasons. First, the delivery of water is expressly "subject to its availability under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Cwiyon Project Act," and secondly, Article 10 was purposely designed to prevent Arizona, or any other state, from contending that the proposed contract resolves any issue on the amounts of water which are apportioned or unapportioned by the compact and the amounts of apportioned or unapportioned water -which are available to the respective states, and it expressly reserves for future judicial determination any issues involving the intent, effect, and interpretation of the compact and act. The Department has made contracts with California and Nevada for the delivery of water from Lake VIead subject to its availability under the compact and act. How-that Arizona has agreed to ratify the compact, it is my opinion that Arizona is entitled to be accorded the same consideration that the Department nas accorded to California and Nevada. The factual background, summary of issues, and comment on the objections raised by California, are summarized in the Memorand'.tm for the Solicitor dated January 29, which he transmitted to you on January 31. A copy, with certain minor modifications, is attached to this summary for ready reference. ConntLs