OCR Text |
Show -9- District and in and by the terms of said report approved said proposal as embodied in said proposed contract and the plans and estimates of cost as had been made in connection therewith and among other things found and declared that the supply of water available to the District now and as it may be enlarged under said contract is and will be ample, that the soil is fertile and susceptible to irrigation, that the plans and estimates of cost prepared in connection with the contemplated works and submitted to the said commission are adequate and that the cost will not exceed such estimate, that the project is feasible and for the best interest of said District, and thereafter and on the 19th. day of December, 1932, filed said report and approval with the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Imperial Irrigation District. Finding No. 13. That plans and estimates of cost were made in connection with the proposal of said Imperial Irrigation District to enter into said proposed contract with the United States and consists of an engineering report by H. J. Gault dated May, 1931, and transmitted May 14, 1931, to the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation at Denver, Colorado, a copy of said engineering report having been offered in evidence by the plaintiffs and received by the Court and marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4, and that said plans and estimates of cost were made pursuant to the terms of a cooperative contract, dated March 26, 1929, between Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District and the United States of America acting for that purpose through Elwood Mead, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, and that said plans and estimates of cost as embodied in said engi- |
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. |