OCR Text |
Show (4) Article 10 provides that the contract shall not impair the right of Arizona and other states or the users of waters therein to maintain, prosecute or defend any action respecting, and is without prejudice to, any of the respective contentions of the states and water users as to (1) the intent, effect, meaning and interpretation of the compact and actj (2) what part, if any. of the water used or contracted for by any of them falls within Article III(a) of the compactj (3) what pert, if any, is within Article III(b) thereof} (4) what part, if any, is excess or surplus waters unanportioned by the contract; (5) and what limitations on use, ri^its of use, and relative priorities exist as to the waters of the Colorado Fiver system. (5) Article 14 provides that the contract shall not become effective until the contract has been ratified by an act of the legislature of Arizona and until the Colorado River Compact has been unconditionally ratified by Arizona* Effojts have been made since 1933 to negotiate a contract with Arizona for the delivery of water from Lake I.'ead. In that year Secretary Wilbur submitted to Arizona a proposed contract similar in many respects to the contract not: proposed* It was not conditioned, however, upon the ratification of the Colorado Hiver CoTipfct by Arizona. Ir 1934- Arizona reopened negotiations and submitted a proposed contract for approval. It was opposed upon several grounds oy California and the five other compact states. One of the major objections was that Arizona wes attempting to obtain all the benefits of the compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act rdthout agreein_ to ratify the compact and become bound by it. At the conclusion of a hearing on the proposed contract, you suggested that the states endeavor to agree upon a mutually satisfactory contract. Further efforts to agree upon a contract failed. On I.'&rch 25, 1943 the Arizona lesisO/iture passed an Act contingently ratifying the compact - the contingency being the execution and ratification by the legislature of a contract between the United States and the State of Arizona for the delivery of water from Lake Mead. Arizona representatives of the Committee of Fourteen asked that Conviittee to consider and approve a proposed contract. At the first meeting of the Committee on the proposed contract held early in May, Bureau representatives, acting under your instructions, took the position that any contract proposed should not commit the Department as to any controversial issues regarding the amounts of water to which Arizona, or any other compact state, is entitled under the Colorado River Compact, it being the Bepartnent's view that the United States on these issues is in a position analogous to that of' a stakeholder. That position has been stated repeatedly in subsequent negotiations. The states, including Arizona and California, agreed that any contract submitted should reserve for future judicial determination the issues between California and Arizona and any issues involving the intent, effect, meaning, and interpretation of the Colorado "-diver Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act. A draft of contract was tentatively agreed upon by the Committee. A drafting comnittee of seven representing each of the seven Colorado River states submitted a final draft to the Committee at its meeting later in liay. After that meetin^, Judi_e Clifford H. Stone, the Chairman, submitted to you a draft of contract approved by the Committee of Fourteen by a vote of 6 to 1, California casting the dissenting vote. In submitting the proposed contract, the Committee asked the Chairman to appoint ? subcommittee of three to participate in proceedings before the Oenartment for the negotiations of the contract. |
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] : |