California's counterproposal, as reported by Colonel Donovan, was: 8 On Saturday, February 8, at California's suggestion, a conference was held between the States of Arizona and California. At this conference, California submitted the following proposal: "California, anxious to make one more effort to bring about an agreement, makes the following proposal for the division of the waters of the lower Colorado River system: "To Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet of water. "Utah and New Mexico to have all water necessary for use on areas of those States lying within the lower basin. "Arizona to have all waters of the Gila system and her other tributaries, excepting such water as reaches the main stream, also her present uses from the main stream, within the State. "California to have water now diverted in California for agricultural and domestic use in California. "Balance of water in main stream to be divided one-half to Arizona and one-half to California. "Mexican obligations to be met one-half by Arizona and one-half by California from main-stream water. "All other points to be left to determination of the Secretary of the Interior, under the act." Each State objected to the other's proposal.' (c) QUANTITIES APPARENTLY AVAILABLE FOR CONTRACT. The contracts authorized by Secretary Wilbur's regulations of 1930-31, as hereinafter summarized, are within the foregoing limits,10 aggregating 5,362,000 acre-feet for California and 2,800,000 acre-feet for Arizona, subject in each case to availability thereof under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Congressional Record, June 26, 1930, p. 12205. Id., pp. 12204-12206. Commissioner Ward of Arizona was quoted by Colonel Donovan (id., p. 12205) as translating California's proposal: "With 8,500,000 acre-feet available, the division would be as follows: California, 5,400,000; Arizona, 2,800,000; Nevada, 300,000," assuming present diversions in California to be 2,850,000 acre-feet, and in Arizona 250,000 acre-feet. 10 The California contracts were before the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et al. (298 U. S. 558), appendix 1304 herein. In that case, the Court, adopting, for the purpose of the decision, figures used by Arizona in her bill of complaint (art. XVIII, "California's Maximum Legal Rights," p. 25-27), said (p. 563-564): "The compact was duly ratified by the six defendant States, and the limitation upon the use of the water by California was duly enacted into law by the California Legislature by act of March 4, 1929, supra. By its provisions the use of the water by California is restricted to 5,484,500 acre-feet annually. "The Secretary of the Interior, acting under authority of sec. 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, has entered into contracts with California corporations for the storage in the Boulder Dam Reservoir and the delivery, for use in California, of 5,362,000 acre-feet of water annually." Arizona asked that the project act be ignored and that an equitable apportionment be made by the Court. The Court refused to take jurisdiction in the absence of the United States as a necessary party. 77831-48 As stated in the first edition (p. 42): * * inasmuch as an entirely new factor, i. e., the building of Hoover Dam and providing of 30,000,000 acre-feet of storage, has intervened after the execution of the Colorado River Compact, there is every reasonable assurance that water adequate to supply all of Arizona's and California's needs can be supplied under these contracts, leaving to the future the settlement of a question which in practice will probably never arise: The technical classification of the water discharges under various provisions of the compact. The effect of subsequent changes in available data is referred to in chapters X (G), and XIII (E), infra. In the following pages appear a summary of the California, Arizona, and Nevada water contracts. The All-American Canal contracts are separately discussed in chapter XI. D. The California Storage Contracts (1) Conflict among California applicants.-The department was faced by a serious internal conflict among California claimants to waters of the Colorado River. Plans had been definitely made, or were under consideration, for irrigating lands in California from the Colorado River, aggregating nearly 1,500,000 acres, and involving an estimated annual use of Colorado River water of over 6,000,000 acre-feet. In general, these fell into two groups, the agricultural interests on the one hand, and the Metropolitan or Coastal Plain areas on the other. 11 (2) Agreement of February 21, 1930 (appendix 1001).--On February 21, 1930, an agreement was entered into between representatives of the Metropolitan group on the one hand, and the agricultural group on the other.12 Following the pattern of the Colorado River compact, this agreement made no attempt to allocate priorities internally within each group, but made the following general division: Next 550,000 acre-feet per annum, available for California use: All water in river available for California use in excess of above The agreement recited: Acre-feet per annum 3, 850, 000 550, 000 4, 400, 000 550, 000 All We recognize that California has been so limited as to make infeasible otherwise feasible projects including several hundred thousand acres of land. 1 See figures cited by Senator Hiram Johnson, Congressional Record, December 7, 1928 (70th Cong., 2d sess.), p. 236 et seq. Cf. "The Colorado River," H. Doc. 419, 80th Cong. (interim report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1947), table CII, p. 172. 12 Appendix 1001. (3) Regulations of April 23, 1930 (appendix 1004) and contract with Metropolitan Water District of April 24, 1930 (appendix 1007).-On April 23, 1930, the Secretary promulgated regulations in very general form (appendix 1004). On April 24, 1930, in advance of execution of the power contracts (appendix 602), an agreement was signed with the Metropolitan Water District (appendix 1007), providing for the storage and delivery of water up to 1,050,000 acre-feet annually. This was somewhat less than the quantity of 1,100.000 acre-feet recognized by the internal agreement of February 21, 1930 (appendix 1001), a margin being left for certain areas which at that time had not joined the Metropolitan Water District. The Metropolitan Water District contract was subsequently amended (appendix 1008) to accord with a further agreement among California claimants, as indicated in chronological order below. (4) Necessity for further allocation.-Negotiations between the Interior Department and Imperial Irrigation District respecting the All-American Canal contract meanwhile proceeded. During these negotiations the necessity for a more definite internal allocation of the water claimed by California became manifest, since the "agricultural" allocation included, en bloc, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley County Water District, and the Palo Verde Irrigation District. Some dispute had also arisen between the Metropolitan Water District and the agricultural group as to the relative priorities of the water allocated to each group within the so-called class A block. (5) Request by the Secretary for recommendations by the State (appendix 1002).-On November 5, 1930, Secretary Wilbur wrote the Imperial Irrigation District and all other California agencies who might contract with the United States, requesting that they ask the cooperation of the State in effecting an allocation which they could join in recommending to the Secretary of the Interior. From November 5, 1930, until August 18, 1931, conferences were held in California under the chairmanship of Mr. Edward Hyatt, State engineer. (6) Seven-party water agreement of August 18, 1931 (appendix 1003).-On August 18, 1931, the seven principal California claimants to waters of the Colorado River executed an agreement, which was approved by the State Division of Water Resources and submitted as a recommendation to the Department of the Interior for inclusion in all California water contracts. This agreement provides that The waters of the Colorado River available for use within the State of California under the Colorado River compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act shall be apportioned in amounts and with priorities stipulated. The following table summarizes briefly the system of priorities set up in this agreement: TABLE 4.-California water priorities Priority Agency and description Annual quantity in acre-feet 1 2 Palo Verde irrigation district-104,500 acres in and adjoining existing district. 3 (a) Imperial irrigation district and lands in Imperial and Coachella Valleys to be 3,850,000 (b) Palo Verde irrigation district-16,000 acres of adjoining mesa. 4 Metropolitan Water District, city of Los Angeles, and/or others on Coastal 550,000 5 (a) Metropolitan Water District, city of Los Angeles, and/or others on Coastal 6 (b) City and/or county San Diego. (a) Imperial irrigation district and lands in Imperial and Coachella Valleys to be (b) Palo Verde irrigation district-16,000 acres of adjoining mesa. 550,000 112,000 300, 000 Total... 5,362, 000 A seventh priority with respect to all remaining water available for use in California was apportioned for agricultural use in the Colorado River Basin in California as shown on map No. 23,000 of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (7) Recommendation by the State.-The agreement of August 18, 1931 (appendix 1003), was approved by the State Division of Water Resources and submitted to the Secretary of the Interior with the recommendation of the State engineer that this system of priorities be incorporated as a uniform clause in all California water contracts. Article 2 of the agreement had requested the Division of Water Resources to amend applications on file with that office under the laws of California, and to proceed with the processing of such applications in accordance therewith. (8) General regulations of September 28, 1931 (appendix 1005).— The Secretary of the Interior placed the seven-party agreement of August 18, 1931 (appendix 1003) in effect by general regulations dated September 28, 1931. However, in all of these agreements, the water-delivery article was preceded by substantially uniform language, as follows: The United States shall, from storage available in the reservoir created by Hoover Dam, deliver to the District each year at a point in the Colorado River immediately above [specifying the point of diversion] so much water as may be necessary to provide the District a total quantity, including all of the waters diverted for use by [or in some instances "for use within"] the District from the Colorado River, in the amounts, and with priorities in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of the Division of Water Resources of the State of California, as follows (subject to availability thereof for use in California under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act) This "subject to availability" clause is carried forward in substantially the same form in all of the California water contracts, referred to below, the Nevada contracts (appendixes 1018-1019), and the Arizona contract (appendix 1016). (9) Summary of California water contracts.-Water contracts of the California agencies conforming to the seven-party agreement of August 18, 1931 (appendix 1003), and under the general regulations of September 28, 1931 (appendix 1005), approving that agreement were executed as follows: (1) METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, September 28, 1931 (appendix 1008): This was supplemented October 4, 1946 (appendix 1012), by an agreement between the United States and the Metropolitan Water District, providing for the consolidation of the Metropolitan and San Diego water allocations, in consequence of the decision to include the San Diego area in the Metropolitan Water District, and by an agreement of March 14, 1947 (appendix 1014), on the same subject between the Metropolitan Water District and the City of San Diego. (2) IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT (the All-American Canal contract), December 1, 1932 (appendix 1106): This was supplemented by an agreement February 14, 1934 (appendix 1107), between the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley County Water District, (3) PALO VERDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, February 7, 1933 (appendix 1006). (4) THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, February 15, 1933 (appendix 1009): This was supplemented by an agreement October 2, 1934 (appendix 1111), between the United States and San Diego, contemplating the delivery of water to San Diego via the All-American Canal. This plan was superseded by the decision to construct an aqueduct from San Diego to connect with the Metropolitan Water District aqueduct, under Navy auspices. (See contracts dated October 17, 1945 (appendix 1010), September 23, 1946 (appendix 1011), October 4, 1946 (appendix 1012), October 29, 1946 (appendix 1013), and March 14, 1947 (appendix 1014).) (5) AGREEMENT OF COMPROMISE between the Imperial and Coachella districts, dated February 14, 1934 (appendix 1107). (6) COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (an All-American Canal contract), October 15, 1934 (appendix 1108), supplemented by an agreement dated December 22, 1947 (appendix 1110), re distribution works. Items 2, 4, 5, and 6, relating to the All-American Canal, are discussed in more detail in chapter XI. No contract has been entered into between the United States and the Yuma project in California, relating to priority No. 2 under the seven-party agreement. Nor has any contract been entered into between the United States and the City of Los Angeles, referred to in priorities 4 and 5, inasmuch as the contract between the United |