AZ vs. CA:25 California Exhibits, Vol. XXV; Nos. 7501-7859

page iv

IV LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL an adequate ground-water law is to assure continued stability- of the developments and to avoid recurrence of the present conditions which make this type of project imperative. Such a law will also contribute to the security of the necessary Federal investment. Copies of the report have been sent to the Secretary of the Army and to the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming for their views and recommendations pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887). The views of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah-in which States impoundments and project works are proposed-and of Colorado and Wyoming are, with but minor qualifications, favorable to development of the project in accordance with the plan set forth. The State of Nevada opposes the development of the proposed project mainly on the grounds of its contention that Arizona's claims to water of the Colorado River are invalid. Nevada contends, furthermore, that there are more practical ways to use the water of the Colorado River for the welfare of the Southwest and the United States. The views of the State of California have not been received. I have assured the representative of that State, however, that the views of the State, when and if received, will be forwarded promptly to the President and the Congress. The Secretary of the Army does not object to the proposed project. Assurance of a water supply is an important element of the plan yet to be resolved. The snowing in the report of the availability of a substantial quantity of Colorado River water for diversion to central Arizona for irrigation and other purposes is based upon the assumption that the claims of the State of Arizona to this water are valid. It should be noted, however, as the regional director and the Commissioner of Reclamation have pointed out, that the State of California has challenged the validity of Arizona's claim. If the contentions of the State of Arizona are correct, there is an ample water supply for this project. If the contentions of California are correct, there will be no dependable water supply available from the Colorado River for this diversion. While the necessary water supply is physically available at the present time in the Colorado River, the importance of the questions raised by the divergent views and claims of the States is apparent. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior cannot authoritatively resolve this conflict. It can be resolved only by agreement among the States, by court action, or by an agency having jurisdiction. The report is, therefore, transmitted to the Congress for its information and such action as it deems appropriate under these circumstances. I feel confident that, in considering the project, the Congress should and will give this conflict the full consideration it deserves. The submission of this report is not intended in any way to prejudice full consideration and determination of this controversial matter. In view of the urgent need for power from Bridge Canyon Dam and for irrigation and domestic and industrial water supplies in central Arizona, I recommend that if the claims of Arizona are correct to a degree which will provide the necessary water supply, the project be authorized for construction in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioner of Reclamation. Sincerely yours, J. A. Krug, Secretary of the Interior.