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

page 7

rne first meettr.g of the Committee on the proposed contract was held in ftioenix on May 3, 1943* The Bureau me invited to have representatives present. Acting under instructicne approved by the Secretary, the Bureau representatives stated the position that they were not authorised to conmit either the Bureau or the DepartaMnt except that on the basic issue as to Mount of water to -rtilch Arisona Is entitled under the Colorado River Compact, the Bureau and the Department did not propose to take any position-either for or against Arisona*s contention; it being our view that the United States on this issue it in i position analogous to that of a stakeholder. Considerable progress was made at the Phoenix conference. The views of the representatives of the compact states, except California, expressed at that meeting on the apportionment of waters to the Lower Basin may be summarised as followsi That the 8,500,000 acre feet provided for in Articles III(a) and ITT(b) of the Colorado River Compact included the waters of Gila River and that the 1,000,000 acre feet provided for in Ill(b) was included for the benefit of Arizona to compensate it for the estimated beneficial consumptive use of approximately 1,000,000 acre feet on the Gila River; that m(b) water was apportioned water, and that California, by the Act of its legislature in accepting the 4,400,000 acre feet provided for in Section 4 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, was precluded from claiming any amount in excess of the 4,400,000 acre feet from the 8,500,000 acre feet provided for In Articles UI(a) and III(b); that this would leave 4,100,000 acre feet for apportionment between Arisona and Nevada, and those parts of New Mexico and utah in the Lower Basin; that it was generally agreed that Nevada was «ntitled to 300,000 acre feet, this leaving the balance of 3,800,000 acre feet for Arisona and those p» rts of New Mexico and Utah in the Lower Basin* Arisen* concurred Id these views, including the view that the waters of the QLla River were included in III(a) and m(b) water, conditionally, that condition being that the proposed contact expressly reserve fbr future Judicial determination the issue, ifcich solely concerned Ariaona and California, as to Aether California was entitled to any water in excess of 4,400,000 acre feet from the 8,500,000 acre feet provided for in Articles ni(a) and III(b). California, while •msepting, of course, to the views of the five compact states and Arisona that California was precluded from claiming any amount in excess of the 4,400,000 acre feet from the 8,500,000 acre feet provided for in Articles in (a) and III(b), did concur in Arisona'e proposal that a contract be submitted reserving for judicial determination the issues between California and Arisona. This is the so-called "Phoenix Treaty* to which California refers on page 10 of its brief. A draft of contract me tentatively agreed upon by the Committee. A drafting committee of seven representing each of the seven Colorado River states was appointed at the Phoenix conference to submit a final draft to the Committee at its meeting in Denver on llay 26. At the meeting in Denver, California representatives proposed a number of amendments which were rejected by the other six states. One of California's objections was that there is no authority In the Secretary to contact with Arlcona for the storage or delivery of Lake Head water without a charge. The Committee concluded, properly I think, that the fixing of charges for the storage of water 1* a matter primarily within the control of the Secretary of the Interior. This part of the contract was left open for such decision as the Department might make.