OCR Text |
Show I have spoken before of the fact that Arizona, although invited, has never come to the conference table to help me in working out these power problems, and has never made an application for power. Yet a large part of the time consumed at Los Angeles was required by the insistence of this department on inclusion in the contracts of clauses protecting the future of Arizona and Nevada. Although your state has never asked for any power, you were allocated 18 per cent of the firm energy, or in excess of 100,-000 horse power, and, unlike all the other contractors, Arizona and Nevada are each given an allocation which does not require their firm obligation for fifty years, but gives them a fifty-year option in the form of a right to contract on certain notice for blocks of power, as power is needed, and to relinquish it on like notice when the need ceases, without prejudice to the right to again take the power when wanted; and this process can be repeated indefinitely. But this is not the only contract provision in your favor. You will recall that section 5(c) of this Act permits the States of Arizona, California and Nevada to contract for energy for use within the State on a preferential status within six months after notice from the Secretary. I might have started that period of limitation running against your state by promulgating notice at any time. Instead I did not do so until the contracts were actually signed, after I had required incorporation in them of a specific recognition of this 6-months privilege. Before closing, I think it is desirable that you have a clear picture of the revenue situation as it affects your state. There is no mandate in the Act that I exact any sums from the power purchasers for the benefit of Arizona and Nevada. I refer you to the opinion of the Attorney |
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. |