| OCR Text |
Show 12 2 diotrict, and afee te enter inte contract ef contracts wkb the 3 se44 district of other districts, poroono, e* agencies ier the 4 eonotmetion^ in accordance wkh this Ae^ el said oanal ft»d 5 appurtonant otwioturoo, ftftd ake ler tbe oporotion esd xiTTvnii v iifriiv" wiiTvinj ¦¦ ii'ii viiv/ V/Uiiuwxiv tt» mr wiivji uuxji u* 7 See? 44t " Political oubdivioion " ef " political «*b- 8 divioiono " m «eed m thk Aefe flbalt fee undorotood te include 9 a«¥ State? irrigation, eg ether diotrict, municipality, ef ethe? 10 sfovornmcntal organisation. 11 " Reclamation kw^ ae Heed i» thi« Aet shall he ««dep- 12 stood te menn that certain Aet el the Congr-cno el the United 13 Statco approved Jtme 4^ 1003, entitled ^^Aft Aet appro |/nuviii^ T7TTT7 a vv\ i^/io TTTTTTT TITT7 Wfttt? ttTTTI IHUIJtJBlll TTT JTttTTTin 15 k«d m certain States a«4 Territories te the oonntruotiou el 16 irrigation works ler the reclamation el arid lands," ft**1, the 17 Aets amendatory thereof &¥& mipplemcntal thereto. tin urwjvi nviviii oitott ttt? 19 include m each instance provision ler ft f*»d sufficient te 20 keep the works i» geed operating condition d««Rg the 21 peried el amortization el construction eestr 22 Sbg? 45t The Colorado River compact signed hy the 23 commissioners el the States el Arizona, California, Colorado, 24 Nevada, New Mexico, Utafy and Wyoming? and hy Herbert 25 Hoover, as the representative el the United States el |
| 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. |
