OCR Text |
Show AUG 2 31943 orable Harold Ickes Secretary of tne Interior Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Secretary: We respectfully ask that the members of your legal staff who are now or soon may be examining proposed contracts for the purchase of waters of the Colorado .River be advised that the State of Utah is preparing to ask for contracts upon a basis of equal priority for her share of "A" waters, as defined by the Colorado River conpact. Certain facts are pertinent: 1st. The Colorado River Conpact allots to the lower basin the annual consumptive use of "A" water 7,500,000 A. Ft. and a right to the use of "3" water 1.000.000 " ¦ A total of 8,500,000 2nd. The Boulder Project Act suggested that the 7,500,000 A. Ft. "A" water be divided: California 4,400,u00 A. ?t. Arizona 2,800,000 " " Nevada 300.000 " " Total 7,500,000 A. Ft. This is a suggestion and is in no sense binding on any State. Of course, Utah and New Mexico are each entitled to a fair share of "A" waters and no contracts should be given that would in any way cloud their titles to their fair shares of "A" waters-which carry valuable priority. The present consumptive use of "A" water in Utah (within the lower basin) from the Virgin tUver, Santa Clara and ICanab Creeks (on 23,000 acres) is 69,000 acre feet. The proposed uevelopuants are: 1st. The builciing oi" the '-.each Creek Heservoir, canals and |
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] : |