OCR Text |
Show Secretary Wilbur, acting under the authority of Section 5 of the Boulder Caiyon Project Act during the yer.rs 1930 to 1933, executed contracts with California Int ere ts for the delivery of 5,362,000 acre feet of water from Lake Head subject to its availability under the compact and act. By reason of its limitation act California concedes that the 962,000 acre feet in excess of 4,400,000 acre feet must come from its share of one-half of the excess or surplus water unapportioned by the compact. It is apparent that the 962,000 acre feet can only be delivered subject to the prior rights of the other Lower Basin states to the apportioned water available to them under the compact. Also, under Article ITI(c) of the compact any rights for use of water in iexico recognized by treaty murt fir Ft be supplied from surplus -water in the Lower ;3asin and, if that is not sufficient, the deficiency must be borne equally by the Upper and Lower liasins. Tnerefore, California's concern in the amount of water available to Arizona under the compact and the amount of water -which the United States by treaty may recognize for use in Mexico is aptarent. I do not think any contract with Arizona would be unobjectionable to CalifOTiia unless it conformed to its "solution" su^ .ested in its brief (p. 23), that Arizona have all water in the Colorado River for use in the Lower Basin "not required to fulfill existing California contracts" end that the contract (p. 28) "shall be subject to all contracts made by the Secretary under Section 5»" Arizona, after refusing for more than twenty years to ratify the compact, has now agreed to ratify it upon condition that there be executed a contract for the delivery of water from Lake ?'°ad between the United States and Arizona. In addition to the California contracts, Nevada has a contract with the United States for the delivery of 100,000 acre feet of water from Lake Mc«d, subject to its availability under the compact and act, and an amendment to that contract increasing the amount to 300,000 acre feet has been submitted for execution. This contract has been expre sly approved by the compact states including California. There is no reason now why Arizona is not entitled to like consideration providing of course, the proposed contract does not commit the Department on any controversial issue regarding the intent, effect, meaning, and interpretation of the compact and act, and providing that it does not resolve any issues as to the amounts of water available to Arizona and California under the compact and act. In this respect it does not differ from the California and Nevada contracts. The Colorado Pdver states, except California, have expre sly approved the proposed contract, including the modifications su^ested by the ; ureau, and have recommended its execution. Ratification of the compact by Arizona, and its recognition of the rights of.the Colorado River states under the compact, is of substantial benefit to those states, it is of r*»3 benefit also to the United States. 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. Substantially all of the water availa )le for use in Arizona "from the Colorado River will be used on public lands of the United States. It is definitely in the interest of the United States that it take any action that it properly can to safeguard its investments in those Arizona nrojects. Also, it is in the interest of the United States that Arizona, by this contract and by ratification of the compact, reeognisre the rights of other compact states in which the TTnited States has a large financial interert to safeguard* |
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] : |