| OCR Text |
Show Statement cf Governor R. C. Stanford of Arizona To Boulder Dam Power Conference Called by Hon. Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, At Washington, D. C. April 16, 1937. Mr. Secretary and honorable representatives of the Colorado River Basin States: I appear before you as governor cf the State cf Arizona in response to an invitation from the Honorable Harold L. Ickes, secretary of the interior, to attend this meeting on the subject of Boulder Dam power contracts, and therefore respectfully submit tho following statement on behalf of the rights and interests cf Arizona and those claiming under it in the Colorado River and its tributaries I LEGAL STATUS The power contracts which are tho subject of this assenbly are: pursuant to the terms of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057) approved in 1923 and power regulations Issued in accordance therewith by the secretary of the interior on April 25, 1930. By Section 13 (oj of said act such riower eontra"tc and water jcutrao'vf or any other privileges thereunder, a3 'veil as th? act itself, ar? expressly subject to the Colorado River Compact, and same is provided in Paragraph XIV of the power regulations. These restrictions arc; without effect and not binding on the State of Arizona, which has rejected the compact for fifteen years, by virtue of decisions of the United States Supreme Court. In th« first and basic Arizona vs. California decision, 283 U. S. 522, handed down May 13, 1931, the Supreme Court hold that Arizona is not bound nor its rights impaired by the Boulder Canyon Project Act cr the Colorado River Compact, und that "the Act interposes nc legal inhibitions" en execution of Arizona's projects or "with the exercise by Arizona of its right to make; further appropriations by means cf diversions above the dam or with the enjoyment cf water so appropriated." The Supreme Court significantly extended this protection of Arizonu by its decision in United States vs. Arizona, 295 U. S. Io2, decided Hay 25, 1935, in which the Court refused to enjoin Arizona from interfering with construction of Parker Dam by the United States. and ruled that Arizona's "jurisdiction in respect cf the appropriation, use and jurisdiction of an equitable share of the waters flowing therein is unaffected by the Cclor&dc River Ccmpact or federal reclamation law," of which law the Boulder Canyon Project Act is -1- |
| 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] : |
