States and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (appendix 1008) comprehends the rights recognized jointly (but not cumulatively) in the District and the City by the terms of the sevenparty agreement.

E. The Arizona Water Contract

(1) Offer by Secretary Wilbur.-In early 1932 Secretary Wilbur submitted to Arizona, through members of the congressional delega tion, a proposal for a water-delivery contract with that State. These informal discussions having produced no result, the offer was promulgated in the form of general regulations, February 7, 1933 (appendix 1015).

The following explanation is reprinted from the first edition (pp. 41-42):

It has been the Secretary's policy to establish a firm and equitable basis for future use of water not only in California but also in Arizona, despite the absence of an agreement or adjudication.

The Department has undertaken in four particulars to preserve for Arizona an opportunity to use the waters which Hoover Dam will make available. The task has been complicated by the confusion left over from the days in which Arizona was bitterly opposed to the entire project.

First, 18 percent of Hoover Dam's firm energy was reserved for use in Arizona. This amounts to the equivalent of about 117,000 continuous horsepower.

Second, the Parker Dam contract with the Metropolitan Water District reserves one-half of the power privilege, amounting to about 40,000 horsepower, for use in Arizona, without contribution by that State or the United States to the capital cost of the dam. Freed of capital investment in the dam, this power will rank among the cheapest power projects in the United States. In addition, the Metropolitan Water District has been required to undertake to transmit Arizona's Hoover Dam power at cost from Hoover Dam to Parker Dam to the extent that excess capacity of the district is available.

Third, in the All-American Canal contract the privilege has been reserved to the United States of using that dam as a pumping basin or diversion heading for irrigation of Arizona lands. The Hoover and Parker power will make feasible the irrigation of the first units of Arizona's proposed Gila project by pumping from Imperial Dam, as well as permit the reclamation of the Colorado River Indian Reservation near Parker.

Fourth, the Department has promulgated regulations designed to assure a water supply to Arizona. These regulations are included as an appendix in this volume. They outline the form of a Hoover Dam water-delivery contract which the United States will enter into with Arizona upon certain conditions. Briefly, the contract calls for the delivery of 2,800,000 acre-feet annually, in return for which Arizona undertakes to make no interference with the diversions by other Government contractors. This quantity of water is adequate for all of the Arizona projects below Hoover Dam, and is without prejudice to the power of the parties to contract in the future for delivery of additional water required. As in the case of the California water contracts, the undertaking relates simply to acre-feet of water stored by Hoover Dam, without earmarking the discharges under articles III-A or III-B of the Colorado River compact, or as surplus water. The proposed contract recites the controversy between the two States over the quantity of water available

to each under the various provisions of the Project Act, and makes no attempt to adjust priorities as between the two States. But 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 proposed water contract with Arizona is specifically stated to be without prejudice to the States of the upper basin, and relates solely to water present in the lower basin. Arizona is thus offered an assurance of 2,800,000 acre-feet of main-stream water, and given an opportunity to look to the United States rather than to an agreement with the other States for a delivery of that quantity of water, in return for an agreement not to interfere with diversions by her sister States. Article 10 (c) of the contract authorized by these regulations provided:

(c) It is recognized by the parties hereto that differences of opinion may exist between the State of Arizona and other contractors as to what part of the water contracted for by each falls within Article III (a) of the Colorado River Compact, what part within Article III (b) thereof, what part is surplus water under said compact, what part is unaffected by said compact, and what part is affected by various provisions of section 4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Accordingly, while the United States undertakes to supply, from the regulated discharge of Hoover Dam, waters in quantities stated by this contract as well as contracts heretofore or hereafter made pursuant to regulations of April 23, 1930, amended September 28, 1931, this contract is without prejudice to relative claims of priorities as between the State of Arizona and other contractors with the United States, and shall not otherwise impair any contract heretofore authorized by said regulations.

Immediately following promulgation of these regulations, the Governor of Arizona asked that negotiations be resumed. During the limited period remaining before the change of administration, March 4, 1933, discussions took place in Phoenix between representatives of the State and representatives of the Secretary without reaching any conclusion.12

On June 29, 1933, Secretary Ickes wrote Hon. B. B. Moeur, Governor of Arizona, withdrawing the regulations. 13

(2) Negotiations, 1934-44.-From time to time from 1934 to 1939 representatives of the State of Arizona attempted to secure from the Secretary of the Interior a State-wide contract earmarking a "fund of water" for later disposition to the projects in Arizona. Hearings and conferences were held on several occasions, but with no result, in view of the objections from other States in the basin to various provisions proposed by Arizona.

12 A draft of the proposed contract had been submitted to Arizona by the Department via Congressman Lewis Douglas of Arizona several months previously. 13 Secretary Ickes referred to Governor Moeur's telegram of February 16, 1933, stating that the proposed contract was not satisfactory to Arizona.

In 1939 the Arizona Legislature passed an act 14 setting out verbatim Arizona's version of an acceptable compact among Arizona, California, and Nevada (differing from that proposed in section 4 (a) of the Project Act, among other respects, by prefixing to the reference to the Gila River the words, "in addition to the water covered" by Article III (a) of the Colorado River Compact and by surplus). This statute also conditionally ratified the Colorado River Compact, the condition being the acceptance by California and Nevada of the compact proposed by Arizona. Neither State accepted, and the Arizona statute expired by its own limitation.

In 1943 Arizona resumed negotiations with the Department. A contract was drafted. Objections were filed by California.

(3) Hearings and decision, 1944.-Hearings were held by Secretary Ickes in February 1944. On February 9, 1944, the Secretary, after making amendments designed to meet the California objections, executed the contract that appears herein as appendix 1016. On so doing he issued an explanatory memorandum, printed herein as appendix 1017.

(4) Terms of contract of February 9, 1944 (appendix 1016).—The water contract of February 9, 1944, between the Secretary and the State of Arizona provides, in general, for the delivery by the United States from Hoover Dam storage of certain maximum quantities of water, subject to availability thereof, under the project act and the compact (art. 7 (a)), such deliveries to be made to users in Arizona who may contract with the Secretary for the same (art. 7 (1)). The quantities referred to are 2,800,000 acre-feet, unclassified (art. 7 (a)), plus one-half of the excess or surplus "to the extent that such water is available for use in Arizona under said compact and said act" (art. 7 (b)), minus the equitable share of Nevada (art. 7 (f)), New Mexico and Utah (art. 7 (g)), in such surplus, minus also the quantity of water diverted by Arizona above Lake Mead (art. 7 (d)), and reservoir losses (art. 7 (d)). With reference to the contracts theretofore made by the Secretary for use in Nevada (ch. X (F), infra) and California (ch. X (D), supra), the Arizona contract provides

Article 7 (f):

Arizona recognizes the right of the United States and the State of Nevada to contract for the delivery from storage in Lake Mead for annual beneficial consumptive use within Nevada for agricultural and domestic uses of 300,000 acre-feet of the water apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact, and in addition thereto to make contract for like use of 1/25 (one-twenty-fifth) of any excess or surplus waters available in the Lower Basin and unapportioned by the Colorado River Compact, which waters are subject to further equitable apportionment after October 1, 1963 as provided in Article III (f) and Article III (g) of the Colorado River Compact.

14 Act of March 3, 1939 (Arizona Laws, 1939, ch. 33).

Article 7 (h):

Arizona recognizes the right of the United States and agencies of the State of California to contract for storage and delivery of water from Lake Mead for beneficial consumptive use in California, provided that the aggregate of all such deliveries and uses in California from the Colorado River shall not exceed the limitation of such uses in that State required by the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and agreed to by the State of California by an act of its Legislature (Chapter 16, Statutes of California of 1929) upon which limitation the State of Arizona expressly relies.

As to the status of the waters to be delivered to Arizona, article 10 provides:

Neither Article 7 nor any other provision of this contract, shall impair the right of Arizona and other States and the users of water therein to maintain, prosecute or defend any action respecting, and is without prejudice to, any of the respective contentions of said States and water users as to (1) the intent, effect, meaning and interpretation of said compact and said act; (2) what part, if any, of the water used cr contracted for by any of them falls within Article III (a) of the Colorado River Compact; (3) what part, if any, is within Article III (b) thereof; (4) what part, if any, is excess or surplus waters unapportioned by said Compact; and (5) what limitations on use, right of use and relative priorities exist as to the waters of the Colorado River system; provided, however, that by these reservations there is no intent to disturb the apportionment made by Article III (a) of the Colorado River Compact between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin.

The contract was to be of no effect unless unconditionally ratified by act of the Arizona Legislature within 3 years and, further, unless within the same period the Colorado River Compact should be urconditionally ratified by Arizona (art. 14).

(5) Approval by Arizona Legislature.-The Arizona contract, redrafted in accordance with the Secretary's announcement of February 9, 1944, was executed as of the same date, and approved by act of the Arizona Legislature of February 24, 1944 (appendix 1016). The Colorado River Compact was ratified by the Arizona Legislature the same day (appendix 230).

F. The Nevada Water Contracts

(1) Contract of March 30, 1942 (appendix 1018).—In preparation for the furnishing of water for the important plants built during the war near Las Vegas, Nev., the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Nevada, through its Colorado River Commission, entered into a contract on March 30, 1942, for the delivery of not to exceed 100,000 acre-feet per year to the State for consumptive use, but not for the generation of electric power.

The agreement was subject to the availability of such water for use in Nevada under the provisions of the compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The contract stipulated a charge of 50 cents.

per acre-foot, in consequence of the reduction in power output at Hoover Dam occasioned by this diversion from Lake Mead.

(2) Contract of January 3, 1944 (appendix 1019).-In a supplemental contract dated January 3, 1944, between the same parties, the agreement of March 30, 1942, was amended by increasing the quantity from 100,000 to 300,000 acre-feet.

G. Effect of Changes in Data

The power and water contracts previously referred to were based, as stated in chapter X (A), upon studies of the water supply made in 1929,15 which in turn were based on the best available data of record for the period prior thereto, beginning in 1897, and available in more adequate form from 1922. However, beginning in 1930-31, almost concurrently with the execution of the California power and water contracts, and continuing with interruptions to date, a period of drought has prevailed, as compared with the period of record on which the projects estimates were based. C. C. Elder, hydrographic engineer, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, states: Compared with the mean annual inflow of 15,730,000 acre-feet [see Mr. Debler's table above, quoted from appendix 29 to the first edition] for the 1897-1929 period, the 1930-47 mean inflow (present depletion) is 12,120,000 acre-feet or 77 percent as great; the 1931-40 mean is 10,790,000 acre-feet or 68 percent; and the minimum year 1934 hød but 4,273,000 acre-feet or 27 percent. From 1930 to date only 4 years out of 18 have been above normal and only 1 had a run-off in excess of 10 percent above normal.

The legal effect of these changes in estimates of supply, plus the increase in demand occasioned by the Mexican water treaty of 1945, which guaranteed Mexico twice the quantity offered in 1930,16 remains to be determined. Arizona and California are in sharp disagreement with respect thereto."

The foregoing chapter cites all of the Hoover Dam water contracts executed to date, including the All-American Canal contracts, but postpones detailed discussion of the latter to the next chapter.

15 See the comments by Mr. Hoover in S. Doc. 32 (79th Cong., 1st sess.), quoted in ch. XIV. See also S. Doc. 39 (79th Cong., 1st sess.), "Water Supply Below Boulder Dam" (1945), p. 8. The legal assumptions implicit in Mr. Bashore's hypothetical tabulation are not necessarily accepted by either Arizona or California. Cf. pt. 2 (separately printed) of S. Doc. 39, supra.

16 Cf. H. Doc. 359 (71st Cong., 2d sess.), "Report of the American Section of the International Water Commission, United States and Mexico" (1930), p. 5. 17 Cf. hearings, House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 5434 (79th Cong., 2d sess., 1946), hearings of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. 1175 (80th Cong., 1st sess., 1947), hearings of the House Committee on the Judiciary on H. J. Res. 225 (80th Cong., 2d sess., 1948); hearings of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. J. Res. 145 (80th Cong., 2d sess., 1948). See also "The Colorado River" (H. Doc. 419, 80th Cong., 1st sess., 1947), particularly comments of Arizona (p. 15 et seq.) and California (p. 19 et seq.). See Ch. XIII (E), infra.