With reference to the validity of the obligation assumed by the Southern California Edison Co. (Ltd.), its execution of the original contract has been formally approved by its board of directors, and I am informed that the supplemental contract has been duly ratified by the board. There can be no question, therefore, as to the binding effect of this contract upon this corporation. By the supplemental agreement amending the original Contract for Lease of Power Privilege all objections which might have been raised to the validity of this contract upon the ground that the city, the Department of Water and Power and the company were not bound to take or pay for any electrical energy except as they might wish, have been removed. Mutuality of obligation is not lacking, and the city and its department are firmly bound to take and/or pay for certain percentages of firm energy as stated and defined in the supplemental contract and the company is similarly bound to take or pay for certain percentages of such energy which are also defined and stated in the supplemental contract. The Contract for Lease of Power Privilege between the United States, the City of Los Angeles, its Department of Water and Power, and the Southern California Edison Co. (Ltd.) is in my opinion a valid agreement binding upon the city and its department to the extent to which funds are available under the provisions of the charter to the department, and is in full compliance with section 4 (b) of the Boulder Canyon project act, since the revenues which it will provide out of such funds are in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior adequate to meet the requirements of that section. Objection has been made to the Metropolitan Water District power contract on the ground that the district has not yet voted bonds to provide funds to build the aqueduct on which this power would be used. It is unnecessary to consider which step must precede the other-provision for the aqueduct or provision for power and waterin view of the sufficiency of the city and company contracts to meet all requirements of the act. Even if the aqueduct financing were construed as being a prerequisite, the Secretary's reservation of energy for the District is within his authority under the second paragraph of section 5 (c) of the act. Giving consideration only to the city and company contract, I am of the opinion that all the requirements of section 4 (b) of the Boulder Dam project act which are made conditions precedent to the appropriation of money, the making of contracts and the commencement of work for the construction of a dam and power plant in Boulder Canyon have been fully met and performed by the Secretary of the Interior in securing the contracts referred to in his letter. Respectfully, (Signed) The White House. The PRESIDENT, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARIZONA, Phoenix, Ariz. SIR: Consideration has been given the contentions and arguments advanced on behalf of the State of Arizona in briefs and discussions by Mr. Dean G. Acheson, of the firm of Covington, Burling & Rublee, who it appears has been appointed special assistant to the attorney general of the State of Arizona, said contentions and arguments being to the effect that no part of the appropriation of $10,660,000 made for the commencement of the Boulder Dam project in the deficiency act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 877), should be expended for the construction work of the dam or power plant because the condition precedent to such expenditure, as required by section 4 (b) of the Boulder Canyon project act of December 2, 1928 (45 Stat. 1059), has not been complied with. The provisions of said section 4 (b), relied upon by the State of Arizona, are as follows: Before any money is appropriated for the construction of said dam or power plant, or any construction work done or contracted for, the Secretary of the Interior shall make provision for revenues by contract, in accordance with the provisions of this act, adequate in his judgment to insure payment of all expenses of operation and maintenance of said works incurred by the United States and the repayment, within fifty years from the date of the completion of said works, of all amounts advanced to the fund under subdivision (b) of section 2 for such works, together with interest thereon made reimbursable under this act. The contention made on behalf of the State of Arizona is that the contracts entered into for the raising of revenues, in compliance with the provisions of this section, are not legally valid and enforceable v contracts and, therefore, are not contracts in accordance with the provisions of the Boulder Canyon project act. The instruments entered into by the Secretary of the Interior in order to comply with the provisions of section 4 (b) of the act are: (1) Contract lease and power privilege dated April 26, 1930, amended May 28, 1930, between the United States and the City of Los Angeles and Southern California Edison Co. (Ltd.); (2) contract for electrical energy dated April 26, 1930, amended May 28, 1930, between the United States and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; and (3) contract for delivery of water, dated April 24, 1930, between the United States and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. It is admitted by all concerned that the last-mentioned contract is a mere option on the part of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to take water if and when available and with respect to that instrument, no question is raised or presented by the State of Arizona for consideration at this time. With respect to the contract with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for electrical energy the Secretary of the Interior has stated that such contract is not necessary in his judgment to provide adequate revenues to repay the United States for advances to be made, the first contract |