OCR Text |
Show __2__ be subject to all contracts made by the Secretary of the Interior under section 5 of the act prior to the date of such approval. In fact, it was the Arizona commission that called this proviso to your attention last October and pointed out to you that by making power and domestic water contracts as you had then indicated you were about to do, you would foreclose certain vitally important matters which Arizona desired to have covered by compact, and which section 8 (b) of the act contemplated should be so covered. It was pointed out to you then, and apparently recognized by you, that so far from being a reason for hastening the making of contracts, this proviso constituted the strongest possible reason for deferring such action until there had been a bona fide effort on the part of the three States to make the compact provided for in the act. It was doubtless your recognition of this fact that led you to suggest a resumption of negotiations between Arizona, California, and Nevada, which suggestion Arizona accepted upon your express assurance that all matters, including power and domestic water, would be left open and subject to such negotiations, and would not be foreclosed by any action on your part. Upon the faith of this assurance, negotiations were resumed at Reno, Nev., and later at Phoenix, Ariz. Arizona and Nevada sought earnestly and in good faith to reach an agreement with California on all these matters, but California, as you know, refused then, as it had previously refused, to compact on the questions of power and domestic water and insisted, notwithstanding the plain provisions of the act, that all these matters, should be left for your determination. In other words, there was not then and never has been any willingness or any bona fide attempt |
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. |