OCR Text |
Show 4 BOULDER CANYON PROJECT DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS The reason for many of the committee amendments above outlined are obvious, and made for the purpose of making the various provisions conform one with another. A few of them, however, are entitled to special consideration. The amendment on page 2, commencing on line 11, making the expenditure for the all-American canal reimbursable under the provisions of the reclamation law, is for the purpose of avoiding conflict with well-established precedent. The latter part of the amendment to the effect that no charge shall be made for irrigation water through the all-American canal is to avoid duplication of charge on the lands. These lands already have a water right, and since they are to reimburse the Government under the reclamation law the act should be perfectly clear that the lands are not to pay additional charges for water service. The amendment on page 5, following line 18, is for the purpose of providing revenue to the States of Arizona and Nevada between which the dam will be located. Upon this amendment there was a sharp division of opinion in the committee. The majority of the committee, however, believed it to be equitable and just that Arizona and Nevada should receive a part of the excess profits of the project. The particular percentages specified are in conformity with the provisions of the Federal act to promote the mining of coal, oil, etc., in the public domain, which provides that moneys paid in by licensee for rights and privileges under the act shall be divided in such way that the State in which the project is located shall receive 37*/£ per cent thereof. The amendment on page 6, line 9, provides that the Secretary shall not make contracts for use in California for an aggregate amount of water exceeding 4,600,000 acre-feet per year, and one-half of the surplus or excess water. This amendment, like numerous other provisions of the bill, is designed to give further assurances to the various States, particularly those in the upper basin, against any undue advantages or rights to California. The amendment on page 6, following line 23, provides for readjustment of rates on power contracts. The theory of this amendment is to keep the rates as high as economic conditions will justify, in order, first, that the Government will receive its money at as early a date as possible; secondly, that there will be excess profits for the States of Arizona and Nevada; and also, that the contractee will not unnecessarily suffer in the event economic conditions would require a lowering of the rates. The amendment on page 7, line 18, relates to preferences, and particularly gives each of the adjacent States exclusive right to contract for such power as it may use within its own boundaries up to one-third of the total power output upon such State entering into contracts for repayment the same as any other contractee. The amendment on page 8, line 7, affects the joint transmission line provision, and is quite material in that it makes clear that a smaller contractor, desiring to use the lines of a larger contractor, must make application for such use within 60 days from the time the larger contractor receives his contract. In that case, the larger contractor knows within 60 days from the date of his contract |
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] : California exhibits. |