OCR Text |
Show 29 they cannot avoid it or lawfully use or obtain a contract for any water in excess of it, and the Arizona contract recognizes their right within the limitation, clearly and fully. Arizona does not view this contract as a substitute for the Tri-State Compact between Arizona, California and Nevada, authorized in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and referred to above. Either with or without such Tri-State Compact it is necessary for Arizona to have a contract with the Secretary of the Interior for storage and delivery of water from Lake Mead, and this contract does not prevent or, in Arizona's view, render less desirable such Tri-State Compact. California is not a party to this contract and is not bound by any of its terms. Arizona is bound and California is not hurt. ***** 31 Respectfulkjsubmitted on behalf of STATE OF ARIZONA, SIDNEY P. OSBORN, Governor. THE COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, HENRY S. WRIGHT, Chairman, JOHN MASON ROSS, NELLIE T. BUSH, Secretary. J. L. GUST, By CHAS. A. CARSON, C.ENK S. CUNNINGHAM, Attorney for The Colorado CHARLES B. WARD, River Commission of Ari- of Counsel. zona. |
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] : |