OCR Text |
Show S. I agree with Messrs. Roddls and Stlnaon that there should be added in Article 11 the words "to be ratably reduced in the erent of water shortage" after the words in line 5 of that article, "water per annum." I do not agree, however, with their conclusion that the addition of the clause is unnecessary as a matter of law. It is true that the amount of water to be delivered is not to exceed 2,800,000 acre feet and that it is not a firm commitment for that amount; but the amount under the figure stated is limited by Arizona's needs. Consequently if only 2,500,000 acre feet were available and Arizona needed 2,700,000, it seems to me that the obligation would be to deliver the larger amount. Of course, it can be pointed out that Article 11 is further modified by the fact that the delivery is stated to be "from storage available", and that Article ll(a) states that the contract "relates only to water physically available", but it seems to me that the possible ambiguity ought to be resolved. The only reason for omitting the proposed addition would be the administrative determination that, as matter of fact, the possibility of less than 7,500,000 feet for the lower basin is so remote that no provision need be made in a contract in contemplation of that posaibility. This is a matter on which the Judgment of the Reclamation engineers might very well be controlling. 4. As to the real bone of contention, namely the proposed addition to Article ll(e) of the draft, I agree with Messrs. Stinson and Roddis that some additional saving clause is necessary to insure against the possibility that this article might involve a commitment as to the meaning of the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which eonmitment might be at variance with the definitive construction of those two instruments, in which case the result would be that the contract would be beyond the Secretary's power. This results from the fact that under section 13(c) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act all contracts for water must be subject to the terms of that act and to the terms of the compact. At the same time I can appreciate why Arizona does not want anything in the contract which would have the effect of flagging the possible danger to its rights in the Gila River. Consequently, I sat down with Mr. Stinson this morning in an endeavor to work out a clause which would definitely establish that the terms of the present contract did not affect in any way the underlying dispute as to the meaning of the compact and act, except in so far as the ultimate determination of the rights |
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] : |