OCR Text |
Show Mr. John c. 'U^e, Consulting Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, Dernver 2, Colorado. In the absence of Comissioner Bashore, I am replying to your letter of May 24, concerning the Central Arizona Project. I think the plan to discuss the whole question of routes and relative costs and benefits with the Governor of Arizona in excellent. Such a course of action is In the full spirit of Section l(a) of the Flood Control act of 1J44. -t is my judgment that California should alee be supplied information obtained during, the investigations, since it le an affectel . state under the law. In my opinion an adequte control of ground water In Arizona is quite important to tha success of the central Arizona Project and also to other future irrigation develpments. I see no reason why you should not appear before the Arizona *legislature in support of the proposition that * ground water node is needed. Accordingly, if a request. for you to appear before the legislature In made of this officet it wi11 be granted. It should be-understood of course, that your appearance before the Legislature should not be construed as an endorsement of specific provisions of the particular bill before it which we have not had an opportunity to study in that connection, you will no doubt wish to eonfar with Regional nunp»l Coffey who made an analysis of the bill which was introduced In the last session of the * legislature In order that you may appropriately frame your testimony« In view of your- state-ment that the Governor of Arizona is going, to Include the matter of a ground water code In his call for a special session, Regional Counsel Coffey Is, by copy hereof, requested to communicate with :>. '. r. Williams In order to dis-cuss with him the suggestions and proposed changes In the former bill discussed In 'Jr. 'Coffey*s Letter of April 20. For your information, a copy of Sr. Coffey*e letter of April 20 and Commisisoner Bashore's reply thereto, dated 'by 10, will be found in the files of the Branch of Project Planning at Denver. If you have not already done no, It Is suggested that you study the aforementioned letter*, particularly, 4r. Coffey*s letter of April 20. The following comments are directed at the point' enumerated on page 2 of your letter l« Points (1) and (3)-^ believe U*t it mint be , ept in Kind t!*.t tl» exchange of oorrrPiOndenot* l>ctwe«ni V. iter and >. ^nffey a^i^ears to be c"inflntMl solely to .\riaona'6 rijit* to ^aKe '&¦»«! cturftbe ¦ear ir. h^i |
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] : |