OCR Text |
Show PROBLEMS OF IMPERIAL VALLEY AK1> VIClJUTY. $& Second. That there be a fair, just, and equitable distribution, of the costs of the ¦entire project. This district board wishes to express itself as beingin harmony with the idea that has been expressed by numerous organizations and bodies relative to having the Secretary of the Interior act as a final arbiter when the question of the distribution of costs and benefits will be considered. Thanking you for your courtesy in this matter, and assuring you of our sincere desire to cooperate in working out the problems under consideration, we are, Very truly yours, COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, By S. S. M. Jennings, President. Palo Verse Joint Levee District, Blythe, Calif., NovemfytW, 1920. Mr. Arthur P. Davis^ Director United States Reclamation Service, Yuma, Ark. Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of November 11, I respectfully submit the following: I Jiave'ascertained the opinion of the people of the Palo Verde Valleyt toaa extent that enables me to assure you that if the investigations and surveys now being made at Boulder Canyon prove the feasibility of the construction of a reservoir at that place of sufficient capacity to control the flood waters of the Colorado River and to furnish water to all irrigable lands lying below that point, at a cost consistent to the benefits that should be derived by the construction of said reservoir, that the district will participate in the cost thereof to an extent compatible to the benefits that should be derived therefrom. We feel that the primal motive for the dam's construction should be the reclamation of all lands that can be profitably irrigated below the Boulder Canyon site, both by gravity flow and where practicable by pump lift, and that, provided Mexico" desires to participate in the costs of the undertaking, provisions be made to meet her requirements.' J We believe that the development of hydroelectric power at the proposed reservoir is essential to the economical consummation of the great undertaking; that the revenue derived from the sale of this electric power should greatly lessen the burden that-must be carried by the various districts participating in the wprk. We believe that this power should'be owned by and operated for the benefit of the# districts, and we favor your plan of distribution as outlined in paragraph 4 of your letter. We feel that in the development of hydroelectric power the fundamental object of the proposed reservoir's construction should never be lost^ight ofj^ that regardless of the desirability of maximum power production the water level in the reservoir should be held at such levels as will at all times control the flood water and will provide adequate irrigation water during years of low^water run-off. Paragraph 5 of your letter meets with our hearty approval. . ¦ We are greatly pleased by the progfess that has been made by your department in the great undertaking, and deeply appreciate your personal interest and untiring efforts in the work. Yours very respectfully, , / Ed F, Williams, President. W. J. Burton, President of the Palo Verde Mutual Water Co. Yuma County Water Users' Association, Yuma, Ariz., May 16, 1921. Hon.* A. P. Davis, Director United States Reclamation Service. Dear Sir: Replying to your, letter of the 10th instant, addressed to the president of this association, upon unanimous approval of our board of governors, expressed at an adjourned meeting held this day, we respectfully submit the following supplemental statement to our resolution of November 29, 1920: After having obtained the opinions of many of our shareholders with reference to the storage and power propositions purposed at Boulder Canyon, we believe the sentiment of a great majority of our constituent members to be such that if the Boulder Canyon project is declared to be feasible to the extent of controlling the |
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] : |