OCR Text |
Show The second part of California's brief (C - pp. 36-54) endeavors to establish that the contract would be void because (1) it is beyond the Secretary's authority} (2) it is not supported by any consideration; (3) it seeks unlawfully to ind the Secretary and his successor? in the future exercise of the discretion; (4) that the proposed contract, being an agreement to make agreements of unknown terms, would be a nullity; (5) the proposed contract gives rise to no remedy in favor of any one* California takes this noMlnu position. If the contract were so amended as to recognize that California first should obtain tiie full amounts of -waters for -which it has contracted, the proposed oontract with Arizona would be acceptable to California. California then states five reasons why the contract would be -void, all of which reasons would be equally applicable to the contract which California states would be satisfactory* Contenting on these objections generally, Section 5, authorising the Secretary to oontract for the delivery of water from Lake Mead, vests broad discretion in the Secretary. In exercising that discretion the Secretary properly ¦ust consider the entire act and what Congress intended should be accomplished by that act* Any contract which is made should effectuate the intention of Congress as expressed in Section 4(a). In fact, by Section 5, contracts aade by the Secretary ¦ust conform to Section 4(a). The proposed contract does not differ in material substance from the contact with the State of Nevada which California has expressly approved, and it does not differ in many respects from the California contracts which under ordinary principles of contract law and irrigation law, are subject to some of the very objections California makes against the proposed contract with Arizona. In thi? respect, the California contracts are contracts for the delivery in the future of unspecified amounts of water to lands Generally described as "on the coastal plain of California,11 and "lands in Imperial and Coachella Valleys" -which will be served from the All-American Canal. While these contracts were made almost fifteen years ago, but a fraction of the amounts contracted for is at this time being delivered. No one has questioned the Secretary's authority or discretion In making these contracts. If the Secretary has authority under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act to make contracts with Nevada and California interests for the delivery of water from Lake Mead, I think his authority, and the discretion vested in him by Section 5, is broac* enough to make such .a contract as is proposed to be made with Arizona. I should like to comment specifically, however, on California's contention (C - HI, pp. 43-47) that the contract is not supported by any consideration and is completely lacking in mutuality which is a point of substance not invoked In the Nevada and California contracts. This point has been carefully considered by the Bureau. The Bureau insisted over Arizona's strenuous objection that there be a charge for the storage and delivery of water. This removed one of California's major objections. Article 9 provides a charge of fifty cents per acre foot for water actually diverted directly from Lake Mead, i*iich charge shall be paid by the users of such water, and charges for the storage or deliverr of water diverted below Boulder Dam shall be as agreed upon between the Secretary and such users at the time of execution of contracts therefor, provided such charges shall in no event exceed twenty-five cents per acre foot. Vfoile this unquestionably Is consideration running to the United States, it is no detriment imposed upon the state as such. To make a burden 10 *1 |
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] : |