OCR Text |
Show -6- Your letter states, or at least implies, that Arizona was three times invited to attend and participate in hearings or conferences with you on the subject of power contracts. Such a statement is inaccurate and misleading. You did not write me on October 23 as now stated by you, but did write me on October 24. You inclosed a release of your statement or outline dated October 21. Your letter of October 24 did not, nor did your release statement of October 21, indicate that the power allocations therein referred to were tentative only. Both the letter and the statement announced that a power allocation had been made by you, but neither the letter nor the statement spoke of the allocation being tentative. Your letter of October 23 did not, nor did your statement of October 21, indicate what price, if any, you had fixed for power, but did indicate that you had fixed the ridiculous price of 25 cents per acre-foot for the storage of domestic water for the Metropolitan Water District of California. Your letter of October 24 did not, as you seem to imply, invite Arizona to attend a hearing before you on November 12. In that letter you merely advised me "that any formal protest that may be lodged by the applicants regarding allocation of this power and related matters" would be heard by you on November 12. Arizona was not then, or at any time, an applicant for power and, therefore, according to the terms of your letter, had no standing to lodge a protest or to attend the proposed hearing. The reason by Arizona was not an applicant for power was indicated in my letter of October 30. As then explained to you, Arizona has never conceded but has always denied, the validity of the Boulder Canyon project act and believes that it can not be made effective without her consent. She has, nevertheless, endeavored in all earnestness and good faith to arrive at a 3-State agree- |
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] : California exhibits. |