| OCR Text |
Show In view of the provisions of Article 7 (d), answers to the two questions posed by you are: (a) Nol Because your letter shows that the flow into Lake Mead is diminished to the extent of the entire diversion. (b) Yes, because the flow into Lake Mead is diminished to the ex+ent of the entire diversion. There is no credit for water returning to the Colorado River below Boulder Dam. 4. Where, in letter of April 27, last, I stated "Under the terms of Article 7 (d) Arizona would not necessarily be charged with total diversions by it above Boulder Dam", I had in mind the possibility of a portion of the total diversion finding its way back into Lake Mend. As your letter indicates there would be no return flow into Lake Mead, then the total diversion at Bridge Canyon diminishes the obligations of the United States, to that extent, under the provisions of Article 7 (d) of the contract of February 9, 1944. (Sgd.) Richard J. Coffey cc - Regional Director, in triplicate (with copies of Mr. Riter's letter, 5/2/45.) (CC-H.iV.Bashoi e, Commissioner , Buretiu of Reclamation, liaahirittoii <o,L.l,. by u.O.) -2- |
| 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] : |
