OCR Text |
Show -7- General of the United States, rendered December 26, 1929, stating as follows: "Manifestly, it was not the intention of Congress that Section 4(b) should require the Secretary of the Interior to make provision by his contracts to insure any payments to those States during the fifty-year period. This was recognized in the debates on the bill." Nevertheless, I have succeeded in negotiating contracts under which firm energy is sold at a price in excess of that for which the power can now be generated by the contracting parties by steam, and succeeded in selling secondary energy at a favorable price. In consequence, the revenues accruing to your state, if these prices are maintained when the readjustment periods required by the Act are reached (and, of course, I can make no guarantee that such prices will be maintained, as the Act requires that they must be readjusted upward or downward at that time, to accord with competitive prices at distributing points or competitive centers), during the fifty-year period of amortization, will range from $22,000,000 to $31,-000,000, depending on the amount of secondary energy utilized. In addition, an amount ranging between $29,-000,000 and $66,000,000, depending on the same factors, will have been paid into the Colorado River Dam fund for other developments on the river, in which your State will have a share. In other words, your state, without guaranteeing a penny toward the success of this project, is handed a sum ranging from $350,000 to upwards of $600,000 per year and given a free option on over 100,000 horse power. The share of the firm power given Arizona and Nevada together is 36 per cent. Compare your position, as stated above, with that of the Metropolitan Water District, which pays for an exactly equivalent amount (36 per cent) about $118,000,000 over the period of its contract, under a firm |
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. |