OCR Text |
Show - 28 - speedily adding that the contract is without prejudice to her contentions as to the meaning and interpretation of the Compact and that she does not by her contract ratify, adopt or construe the Compact, and that her concession in favor of the Compact does not carry with it the surrender of any of her contentions as to the control of waters within her boundaries. If Arizona really wants to acknowledge the supremacy of the Compact she should say so without qualification or reservation, or if she wants to include a lot of qualifications and reservations, and still acknowledge the supremacy of the Compact, she should insert in her contract a clause to the effect that she and the contract are subject to and controlled by the Colorado River Compact, notwithstanding any and all reservations, qualifications, interpretations, claims and anything to the contrary contained in her contract. She is not willing, however, to subordinate these things to the Compact even as to a single item, much less is she willing to enter into a contract without reservations and interpretations at all, notwithstanding the fact that all of the other contract holders have done so and that the Act requires her to do the same. When parties to a contract insert therein clauses that are diametrically opposed and do not say which is controlling, each nullifies the other, and in consequence, it is questionable whether anything is agreed to. There is nothing but inconsistency between Arizona's affirmation that the contract rights shall be subject to the Compact on the one hand and her reservations as to her interpretations, etc., thereof, known only to Arizona, on the other. The paragraph reserves not only Arizona's already existing water rights, which under the protective sections cannot be done, but also reserves the right to adopt policies and enact laws relating to the control and use of waters generally within her boundaries, except as to the 2,800,000 acre feet. By this last reservation it is her |
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] : |