| OCR Text |
Show THE COMMISSIONER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER •'.' AUG1931 ">V Mr. W. P. Whitsett, ¦ i RErFlue- gj Director, Metropolitan Water District, -, "vEIVED ^ Los Angeles, California. *"j[wrnSS? My dear Mr. Whitsett: My attention has been called to the use of certain extracts from my letter of February 28 to Mr. 8. 0. Ivans, Executive Director, Boulder Dam Association, in reply to his letter of February 3, which, taken separate from their context, are being oonetrued by opponents of the Metropolitan District as casting doubt on the water right oonferred by your oontract with the United States. The interpretation which apparently is being attributed to these extracts was not intended. The letter of February 3 from Mr. Evans and my reply of February 28 relate chiefly to the design and construction of Hoover Dam. The matter of storage and distribution of water is Involved only incidentally. The extracts to which reference is made read as follows: •You will, however, realize that authoritative answers to the various phases of the matter can only be given by the courts. It might not be amiss also to bear in mind that the Secretary of the Interior has no authority to designate the ownership of waters released from the Hoover Dam." The last sentence above quoted was Intended to apply to vested and inohoate rights in the unregulated flow of the Oolorado River, with which it had been suggested storage in the Hoover Dam Bight interfere. My letter intended to oonvey the view that determination of such vested and inchoate righte 1b the unregulated flow of the river la a matter for the administrative officer* of the State and the courts. The disposition of water stored in Hoover Dam, however, stands upon an entirely different basis, section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Projeet lot expressly authorises the Secretary of the Interior to oontraot for the storage of water in the reservoir and for the delivery thereof at such points as may be agreed wpon. Accordingly there |
| 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] : |
