OCR Text |
Show Hon. Ray Lyman Wilbur. August 12, I93u. -5- The Metropolitan Water District in conformity with the agreement of June 21, 1930, requests that the water contract between the United States and The Metropolitan Water District, dated April 24, 1930, be amended by making the insertions and additions therein as above set forth, and, as provided for in the agreement of June 21, 1930, between said District and said Agricultural Groups, a copy of which is hereto attached. And said District further represents, regarding the proposed plan for providing accumulative storage for the use and benefit of such District, (1) That such plan for accumulative storage will not necessarily involve any change In Hie proposed operation of the Boulder Canyon reservoir. The power output as provided for in the contracts of April 26, 1930,, secured by the Secretary of the Interior in financing the construction of that project and the corresponding turbine discharges will be the controlling demand for water from the reservoir, probably until, at least, after the amortization period as provided for in tiie Boulder Canyon Project Act. There will, therefore, be no damage or loss to the United States from such aceurculative storage as no reduction in the revenue of the project can result, but rather a slight increase in the net income during periods of water shortage, due to the more uniform demand for water through the aqueduct of such District for domestic use, as compared with other uses. (2) No water user outside of California can be adversely affected by the grant of such accumulative storage. The maximum permissible California diversions are defined and limited by the Colorado River Compact and the Bould-er Canyon Act. Hence the effect of this amendment to the water contract can only be to alter slightly in periods of acute shortage, the distribution of water available to California among users in that State entitled to be supplied. (3) The withdrawal of water under such plan of accumulative storage, even in periods of acute water shortage, would be an extremely remote contingency. This is clearly indicated by the Boulder Canyon Froject water supply studies. (4) Such plan of accumulative storage is extremely desirable to the District, not so much on account of any possible increase of supply for its aqtieduct but especially because of the additional strength and security it would sive to the bonds to be issued by the District for construction purposes. 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] : |