OCR Text |
Show II. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph I! of the Bill of Complaint, other than the allegations therein contained to the effect that Parker Dam and the reservoir to be created thereby will have the effect, or may be so used or operated, as to improve or aid navigation, and the defendant alleges, on the contrary, that said Dam and reservoir, when, and if constructed, will be an insuperable obstacle and impediment to navigation and will prevent navigation of the Colorado River between points above and below said Dam. III. Answering Paragraph III of the Bill of Complaint, the defendant admits that said Parker Dam has been included by the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works in the comprehensive program of public works referred to and authorized by Section 202 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, but in this connection, defendant alleges that said Dam project was not so included in said program of public works until December 28, 1933, more than ten months after the date of the contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, by the terms of which the Secretary of the Interior assumed to bind the United States to construct said Dam for the benefit of said District. IV. Answering Paragraph IV of the Bill of Complaint, the defendant admits that the Chief of Engineers of the |
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. |