OCR Text |
Show that the question be reserved for future judicial determination as to whether Ill(b) water was apportioned. Arizona's position that Gila River water was not included in the water allocated under Articles III(a) and III(b) was the source of major opposition from the six Compact states when a proposed contract was submitted for your approval in 1934. "Bureau representatives at the Phoenix conference took the position, consistent with the instructions contained in my memorandum to you dated April 26, that the Department was not in a position to consider any proposed contract until the basic issues had been agreed upon by Arizona and the six Compact states, and further, on the basic issue as to the amount of water to which Arizona was entitled under the Colorado River Compact, the Bureau representatives did not propose to take any position, either for or against Arizona's contentions. While the Bureau representatives were not authorized to commit the Bureau and the Department on the specific terms of a proposed contract, the representatives assured the conferees that they would be glad to assist and cooperate in any way possible, consistent with the foregoing." Calif. Ex. 7603: Letter from Commissioner H. W. Bashore to Clifford H. Stone, dated November 20, 1943, with supporting documents: (l) Memorandum to the members of the Committee of Fourteen, Colorado River Basin, from Clifford H. Stone, Chairman, dated November 8, 1943; and (2) Letter from Clifford H. Stone, Chairman, Committee of Fourteen, Colorado River Basin, to Commissioner H. W. Bashore, dated November 8, 1943 The Committee of Fourteen, California representatives dissenting, approved the draft of the Arizona contract. Utah representatives, however, wished to obtain a recognition of her 111-63 |