OCR Text |
Show -46- ing power, arising from the use of water accruing to said States, subsidiary to and consistent with the Colorado River Compact." So broad a provision could, in the event of an agreement between all three States of the lower division, work to their great advantage. In the event of such an agreement by two, affecting all three, it might and probably would, if ratified by the United States, work to the great deprivation of the third. The principle of a three-State agreement made effective when ratified by two is as repugnant as the idea of a seven-State treaty made effective when ratified by six. A requirement contained in Section 8 that the proposed agreement shall be subject to congressional approval "on or before January 1, 1929," is evidently an error. A further provision that such requirement "shall be subject to all contracts, if any, made by the Secretary of the Interior * * * prior to the date of such approval and consent by Congress," appears to be a way of nullifying the possibility of any important advantage which might accrue to the States through an amicable agreement for an "equitable division of the benefits, including power, arising from the use of water accruing to said States," for it follows that before an agreement could be reached by the States and ratified by Congress the Secretary of the Interior would have entered into contracts precluding any more advantageous division than the one contained in this measure. Withdrawal of Public Land Section 9 does not depart from the original measure in withdrawing from entry all public lands which may be found to be practicable of reclamation by the works authorized, and, when the lands are opened for entry, in giving a preference right to ex-service men. A preference, limited by the words "so far as practicable," is also given to ex-service men in all construction work. |
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. |