OCR Text |
Show .fining directly from the state, representatives of the Bureau, in conferring with the ruboonmittee had included in Article 9 the f oil owing sentence: "Arizona by this contract expressly guarantees the payment to the United Statesof any charges to users made pursuant to this paragraph." We concluded, hen ever, that it was of doubtful validity because of the provisions of Section 7 of Article 9 of the Arizona Constitution which provides: Neither the state, nor any covnty, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corptration, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of lawj/ Even if this sentence were acceptable to Arizona, I would be reluctant to insist upon it in view of its doubtful validity. Moreover, I am convinced that there is consideration running from Arizona to the United States. Arizona's agreement to ratify and become bound by the compact is of real benefit to the United States although it aay be an intangible benefit. The United States proposes to Invest millions of dollars in developing the Gila project in Arizona and is investigating other projects in Arizona dependent upon diversions from the Colorado River. xt is of major concern to the United States that its investments in those projects not be jeopardized and that Arizona agree to recognize the rights of other compact states. Before any actual diversion is commenced, it is necessary that its relations with the state be stabilized and clarified. Also, there is further consideration for the benefit of California, Nevada, Utah, and New Vexico in that Arizona for the first time recognizes the rights of those states-the rights of California to the extent of its limitation act, tne rights of Nevada to the extent of 300,000 acre feet and 1/25 of the unapportloned surplus, and the rights of utah and New Mexico to their equitable shares. Arir.ona is bound by those recognitions and the other states are benefited* The detriment to the promisee, Arizona, to the benefit of the other Lower Basin states constitutes consideration to support the contract under principles applicable to third party beneficiary contracts (Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Sec. 75, p. 30). I think we should keep in mind that the Department has indicated its willingness to make a contract with Arizona fir almost twelve yef>ra. Moreover, the contract the Department offered to Arizo: a in 1933 was not contingent on Arizona ratifying the compact. At the outset of the negotiations commencing last spring, the Department again indicated its willingness to contract with Arizona on This provision of the Constitution was considered by the Supr«ae Court of Arizona in Day v. buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District. 28 Ariz. A66, 237 Pac. 63^iTand Humphrey v. City of Phoenix, 55 Ariz. 37A. 102 P. (2d) 82, but the point involved here was not decided. |
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] : |