AZ vs. CA:20 California Exhibits, Vol. XX; Nos. 4050-4092

page 23

-23- tion, improvement of navigation, and flood control" and only thereafter for storage of water for irrigation and domestic purposes and for the generation of power; (2) that this structure, like the others mentioned in this paragraph, straddles the river at a point where it forms the boundary between two States and that, at the time it was built, the opposition to the project in Arizona was such that, even if an appropriation under the laws of Arizona had been required, none could have been made; and (3) that an adequate water supply for this project was, for all practical purposes, guaranteed by the existence of the Colorado River Compact, Article IH(d) of which committed the States of the Upper Division not to deplete the flow of the stream at Lee Ferry below 75,000,000 acre-feet every ten years and by section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act which provides that "no person shall have or be entitled to have the use for any purpose of the water stored as aforesaid [i.e., behind Hoover Dam] except by contract made as herein stated" with the United States. Not only does Davis Dam serve an irrigation function only indirectly-its principal functions are the generation of power and the reregulation of water released from Hoover Dam for downstream uses in the United States and for delivery to Mexico under the treaty of February 3, 1944-but it also lies at a point on the river where the river forms a boundary between two States and its water supply is assured by the United States' control of Hoover Dam. The Parker Dam authorizing act, cited above, validated a contract, dated February 10, 1933, theretofore entered into between the Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the United States, and the Metropolitan Water District