OCR Text |
Show June 13, 1933. Memorandum to the Solicitor: On February 7, 1933, the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations concerning the delivery of water in Arizona from the Colorado River. As a part of the regulation there is attached a contract proposed for execution by the United States and the State of Arizona. The articles of the contract stipulate that the authorization for use of stored water by Arizona from Boulder Dam shall remain in force only so long as the State and water users therein do not interfere by litigation or otherwise with the diversions of other holders of water contracts with the United States and the diversion works constructed by or for them. The contract if made will provide for the delivery annually of 2,800,000 acre-feet of water for use In Arizona in addition to the quantity vouchsafed to Arizona from the Gila River. The principal use of the proposed contract is set forth in paragraph 15(b) wherein it is said: "The State of Arizona and its permittees will not Interfere by litigation or otherwise, with deliveries of water under any contract between the United 9tates and water users in the State of Nevada, * * * with the construction of diversion works by or for the holder thereof, nor with diversions or other uses affected by such works." Paragraph 14 of the proposed contract provides that the United States would make no charge for the use, storage or delivery of water for irrigation or potable purposes. When the proposed contract and regulations were submitted to the State officers of Arizona, the plan was rejected after personal representatives of the Secretary had conferred with the State officials. A telegram of February 25, 1933, from John M. Ross, one of the water commissioners of Arizona, to the Secretary of the Interior, states among other things: "Arizona believes that, subject to the usual Federal rights in navigable waters, the river waters belong to the interested States; that water rights are |
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] : |