OCR Text |
Show -9- asking upward of 3,000,000 acre feet of main stream water. Your state will some day come to the Secretary of the Interior for a contract for delivery of your water, just as the Metropolitan Water District has done. If you receive 3,000,000 acre feet and are charged what we are charging the District for water delivered below the dam, 25^ per acre foot, the charge will be $750,000 per year. If we charge you what you have asked us to charge the District, that is, from $1.00 up, the charge against you will be upwards of $3,000,000 per year. Which of these two precedents do you wish established? Which shall pay the way: power, which you do not want, or water, which you do? I think that consideration of these questions may help you in coming to the conclusion that I have given some thought to the future of your state. In closing this somewhat direct statement to you I wish to reiterate my appreciation of your personal grasp of the entire situation and of the capacity shown by the members of your Commission. There are, however, a number of facts which it is about time that the people of your state should know, in view of your Commission's closing statement that it hopes that "when the facts of the controversy are brought to the attention of Congress, the request for this appropriation will be denied." Very truly yours, (Sgd.) Ray Lyman Wilbur Secretary. |
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. |