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

page 6

only state physically that can use it. On the other iiand, if California can eatablirh that the million acre feet is unapportioned, then the pool of surplus unapportioned waters, to which California is entitled to one-half, would be Increased by that amount. It is clear from examination of all the paragraphs of Article III of the compact that III(b) waters are apportioned waters and are not surplus or unapportioned waters. Tne Supreme Court, in effect, so held in Arizona v. California. 292 U.S. 341. Moreover, I am convinced that California is fully aware of the weakness of its own position. With these facts in mind, the absurdity of California's "solution" (p. 23) that Arizona have all water in the Colorado River for use in the lower basin •toot required to fulfill existing California contracts" and that the contract (p. 28) "shall be subject to all contracts made by the Secretary under Section 5" becomes apparent. (5) Contract negotiationa with Arizona. ___ (a) Prior to 1935i In February 1933, Secretary Wilbur submitted to Arizona for its consideration a proposed contract similar in many respects to the contract now under consideration* Arizona took no action and negotiations ceased after Secretary Wilbur left office. In 1934 Arizona reopened negotiations and submitted a proposed contract to the Secretary. Tt was opposed by California and the five other Colorado River states. The major objection of the five Colorado River states other than California was that Arizona was attempting to obtain all the benefits of the compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act without agreeing to become a party to the compact or be bound by it; that there was no charge imposed for the storage or delivery of the water proposed to be delivered) and that the Secretary under the oontract unconditionally guaranteed to deliver to Arizona 2,800,000 acre feet of Ill(a) water. Other objections were made, many of which were frivolous. The Secretary held a hearing on the objections on December 17, 1934. At the conclusion of the hearing the Secretary suggested that the states endeavor to agree upon a contract satisfactory to all the states. A meetir.gwas subsequently held in Salt lake in February 1935 but Arizona would not agree to the draft proposed at that meeting* (b) Contract negotiations commencinp. in May 1943 and mi Imitating in proposed contractt Daring the past year Arizona's "lone wolf" attitude has changed.^/ Arizona, through its present Governor and Senators, undoubtedly having in mind pending and future developments of the Colorado River in Arizona, Is making a sincere effort to rid itself of the bitter feeling growing out of its past controversy on the compact. On March 25, 1943 its legislature passed an act contingently ratifying the compact, the contingency being the execution and ratification by the legislature of a contract for the delivery of water from Lake Mead between the United States and Arizona. Its representatives on the Committee of Fourteeniy asked the Committee to consider and appiwe a proposed contract. ~y I may add that the attitude of the Compact states, except California, likewise has changed. In 1934 all of the Compact states were aligned against Arizona. Now all of the Compact states, and Arizona, are aligned against C4 ifornla. 2/ The Committee of Fourteen is composed of two representatives of each of the seven Colorado River states appointed by the Governors. It was first organized in 1939 at a Governors conference. It has no legal entity as such but it has come to be recognized as tne representative organization for the consideration of all Colorado River problems affecting the Colorado River states. When it considers Boulder power matters, it becomes the Committee of Sixteen, the two additional members being representatives of the power allottees* 6