OCR Text |
Show 250 Senator Johnson of California. Let him answer. The Chairman. He has already answered, but I will let him answer again. Mr. Howard. That is a limitation, I take it, not a grant. The grant to California came in contracts with the Secretary of the Interior, authorised by the Boulder Canyon Project Act. It is upon those contracts that we rely for our affirmative right to water.96 (Italics added.) * * * The Chairman. I do not like to interrupt you, but this contract with the Secretary of the Interior is more in the nature of a license to use so much water, is it not ? Mr. Howard. No, sir; these are contracts. The Chairman. Is there any binding obligation on the Secretary to deliver that amount of water ? Mr. Howard. Yes; there is.9T * * * Senator Millikin. Let me ask a question, please. Is there a compact at the present time between Nevada, Arizona, and California, and the lower basin States? Mr. Howard. No, sir; there is none. Senator Millikin. You have not decided on your allocation of water among yourselves ? Mr. Howard. No. We have a rather complicated situation there, sir. In a way, the California Limitation Act constitutes a substitute for such an apportionment. That is, they held our side down, but there was no agreement between California and Arizona in the matter. >«Id., at 876. "Id., at 880. |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial 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 |