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

page 4

entirely (an amendment proposed by California which Arizona and the other compact states exprersly rejected), any modification of subdivision (b) to overcome California"8 objection would create the inference, which would be subject to the same objection by Axi7-ona, that the 2,800,000 acre feet referred to in subdivision (a) was comprised of both apportioned and unapportioned water. Secondly, Article 10 was purposely desired to prevent Arizona, or any other state, from contending that the proposed contract, or any provision of the proposed contract, resolves any issue on the r.mountf of -.vater rhicii are apportioned or unapportioned by the corvxct, and the arounts of apportioned or unapportioned water to which tiie respective states are entitled. The lan^-uage of Article 10 is plain and unequivocal. However, to overcome California's fear, as e::pressed in its brief, that subdivisions (a) and (b) of Article 7 would control over Article 10, the words "This contr?ct shall not impair" in the firrt line of Article 10 have been deleted and the words "Neither Article 7, nor any other provisions of this contract, shall impair? have been substituted therefor. California also contends, on several ^rounds, tiiat the proaosed contract would be void. Section 5 authorizes the Secretary to contract for the deliverv of water from Lake "ead and vests broad discretion in the Secretary. In exercising that discretion the Secretary properly must consider the entire act and what Congress intended should be accomplished by that act. The proposed contract does not differ in material substance from the contract with the state of Nevada Tihich California has expressly approved, and it does not differ in many respects from the California contracts which are subject to some of the objections California makes against the proposed contract with Arizona. Ho one has questioned the Secretary's authority or discretion in making those contracts. If the Secretary has authority under Section 5 to make contracts with Nevada and California interest? for the delivery of water fron Lake Head, subject to its availability under the compact and act, 7. think his authority, and the discretion vested in him by Section 5, is'broad enough to make such a contract as is proposed to be made with Arizona. Moreover, California is not a party to this contract. It is between the United States and Arizona, and they assume the risk v.±th respect to its validity, not California. At the hearing on Tebruary 2 you indicated to California' c representatives that you were interested in the aqultlei between Arizona and California. Since Arizona has agreed to ratify the compact, it is my opinion that Arizona is entitled to be accorded the same consideration that the department has accorded to California and Mevada. Briefly, the facts are: Congress provided in passing the 'foulder Canyon Project Act that it should not become effective until California, by act of its legislature would a^ree to a limitation for use in California of /?, 400,000 acre feet of the 7,500,000 acre feet apportioned to the Lower Basin by Article III (a) of the compact, plus not more than one-half of any surplus or excess water unapportioned by the compact. California passed its limitation act in 1929. Congress also authorized Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an apportionment agreement which, among other things, should provide that of the 7,500,000 acre feet annually apportioned to the Lorer Basin by Article III(a) of the compact, there should be apportioned to Nevada 300,000 acre feet and to Arizona 2,800,000 acre feet; that Arizona might use annually one-half of the e-cess or surplus water unapportioned by the compact; and that Arizona should have the exclusive beneficial use of the Gila River and its tributaries v.-ithin the boundaries of the state. Although Arizona has agreed to enter into a tri-st&te compact as authorized, Cnlifomia has refused.