OCR Text |
Show and Arizona. Bureau representatives under my instructions have taken the position throughout the negotiations that any contract proposed should not commit the Department as to any controversial issue regarding the amounts of water available to Arizona, or to any compact state, under the compact and the act. The proposed contract has been approved by the representatives of each of the Colorado River states, except California. "I have considered carefully the objections made by California in its printed brief and at the hearing before me on February 2. California is fearful that subdivisions (a) and (b) of Article 7 construed together create an inference that the maximum of 2,800,000 acre-feet which the United States agrees to deliver under subdivision (a) is water apportioned to the Lower Basin under Article III (a) of the compact and that Arizona could contend, to California's prejudice, that this constituted an administrative determination that Arizona was entitled by this con-tract to 2,800/Jicre-feet of III (a) water. I am convinced that California's fears in this respect are unfounded for at least two reasons. First, I wish to make it clear, and to emphasize, that the delivery of water under both subdivision (a) and subdivision (b) of Article 7 is expressly 'subject to its availability under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act.' The proposed contract does not attempt to obligate the United States to deliver any water to Arizona which is not available to Arizona under the terms of the compact and act. Secondly, Article 10 was purposely designed to prevent Arizona, or any other state, from contending that the proposed contract, or any provision of the proposed contract, resolves any issue on the amounts of waters which are apportioned or unapportioned by the compact and the amounts of ap- |
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. |