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

page 3

The proposed contract tns carefully considered in the Bureau and a number of modifications were made. Bureau representatives met with the subcommittee, comprised of Judge Stone, Mr. Charles A. Carson, representing Arizona, and Mr. Arvin B. Shaw, representing California, in Denver in October. The change* requested by the Bureau were accepted. At a meeting of the Committee of Fourteen in Denver or. October 30, the contract as modified was approved, California again dissenting. The contract, as approved by the Committee of Fourteen, was transmitted for your approval in the Chairman's letter of December 31* California's objections to the proposed contract have been very carefully considered. One of California's major objections was Arizona's proposal that the contract provide that there should be no charge for the storage or delivery of water at points below Boulder Dam. Arizona contended that it should be accorded the same rights as users in California and that since no charge was nade in the contracts with Inperial Irrigation 'District and Palo Verde Irrigation District' for the delivery of 4,150,000 acre feet, no charges should be made against Arizona. The Committee concluded, properly I thi^k, that the fixing of charges for the storage of water is a natter primarily within the control of the Secretary of the Interior. This part of the contract was left open for such decision as the Department might make. While not conceding California's contention that the Secretary was required to make a charge under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Bureau believed as a matter of policy that provision for charges should be included, and Article 9 providing for charges was insisted upon over Arizona's objection. This removed one of California's major objections* California also contends that subdivisions (a) and (b) of Article 7 construed together are prejudicial to California in that there is an implied inference by subdivision (b) that the maximum of 2,800,000 acre feet which the United States agrees to deliver under subdivision (a) is water apportioned to the Lower Basin under Article HI(a) of the compact and that Arizona could contend, to California's prejudice, that this constituted an administrative determination that Arizona was entitled by this contract to 2,800,000 acre feet of IH(a) water. California's fears in this respect are unfounded for at least two reasons. Granting that subdivision (b) does create an inference that the maximum of 2,800,000 acre feet which the United States agrees to deliver in subdivision (a) is apportioned water, the delivery of water under both subdivision (a) and subdivision (b) of Article 7 is expressly "subject to its availability under the Colorado River Compact and the BouMer Canyon Project Act." The proposed contract does not attempt to obligate the United Stater to deliver any water to Arizona which is not available to Arizona under the terms of the compact and act. If it sho-jld so attempt, it would be meaningless because it would not conform to Sections 1, 8(a) and 13(c) of the act tihich requires subjection of the contract to the terms of the compact and act. j-""More specifically, Article III(a) of the compact apportions from the Colorado River ! system 7,500,000 acre feet for use in the Lower Basin, and by Article III(b) the Lov.er Basin was jiveri the right to increase its consumptive uses of such waters by 1 000 000 acre feet per annum. If it should be determined, as contended by California that the 1,000,000 acre feet of III(b) is unaoporttoned, the amount of water available for delivery in Arizona under subdivision (a) would be reduced accordingly. Also, by ratifying the compact, Arizona concedes that the Gila River and its tributaries are within the "Colorado River system." If it should be determined that the consumptive uses on the Oila and its tributaries exceed 1,000,000 acre feet it would appear that the amount of water available for delivery in Arizona under subdivision (a) would be reduced by the amount the consumptive uses on the Gila exceed 1,000,000 acre feet. Unless subdivision (b) were eliminated