the reservoir, the cost of operation and maintenance will be prorated upon the basis of a comparative use of water by each party.

18. Operation and maintenance of power plant and power plant build

ings.

Each party will operate and maintain at its own cost the generating equipment and power plant buildings used by it.

19. Title.

Title to the dam and all other structures erected by the United States, whether utilized by it or by the district, shall remain in the United States.

20. United States to be held harmless.

The district agrees to save the United States harmless from all claims arising out of construction and operation of the dam and to pay all damages resulting from flooding of lands, including a small desert area within the Chimehuevi Indian Reservation.

21. Access to work and to books and records.

Each party will have access to the plans, books, and records of the other with reference to the dam.

22. Existing contracts between the United States and the district not affected.

The present power and water contracts between the parties remain unaltered by this agreement.

23. Transfer of interest in contract.

No voluntary transfer of the contract or of any interest therein may be made without the Secretary's approval.

24. Rules and regulations.

The contract will be subject to the Secretary's regulations, provided that the district's rights shall not be impaired thereby and that opportunity for hearing shall be afforded the district by the Secretary.

25. Agreement subject to Colorado River compact.

Article 25 contains a stipulation required by the project act in section 13 (a) to the effect that the contract is subject to the Colorado River compact.

26. Disputes and disagreements.

Article 26 provides procedure in the event that the parties agree to arbitrate. This accords with article 35 (a) of the Hoover Dam power lease.

27. Member of Congress clause.

Article 27 contains the usual stipulation relating to benefits to members of Congress.

3. THE PROPOSED ARIZONA WATER CONTRACT

Secretary Wilbur on February 7, 1933, promulgated regulations in the nature of an offer to Arizona of a water delivery contract. Under the terms of the regulations the offer remains open only so long as Arizona does not interfere with diversions or diversion works of other holders of water contracts with the United States.

The terms of the proposed contract, stated in 22 articles, are as follows:

1. Parties.

The proposed parties are the United States and the State. It is contemplated, however, under article 11, that at some later time subordinate contracts will be entered into between the United States and actual water users. The present contract will be in the nature of a general specification of terms to cover all deliveries.

2-9. Explanatory recitals.

Article 2 recites the construction by the Department at Black Canyon of a dam creating a reservoir capacity of 30,500,000 acre-feet. Article 3 recites the authorization of the project act for use of this dam and reservoir for river regulation, improvement of navigation and flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic use, and satisfaction of perfected rights, and third, for power.

Article 4 recites the authorization of the act for the making of water delivery contracts.

Article 5 recites the previous promulgation of regulations for delivery of water in California and the desire of the present parties to likewise contract for storage of water for use in Arizona and to assure the uninterrupted performance of all such contracts.

Article 6 recites that water has been reserved and appropriated for land within the Colorado River Indian Reservation in Arizona unaf

fected by the Colorado River compact (Art. VII of which exempts obligations of the United States to Indian tribes).

Article 7 recites the desire of the parties to avoid claims by foreign water users to water stored by Hoover Dam to the detriment of the Arizona project, and to provide for storage of waters for use in Arizona without prejudice to the right of the parties to hereafter contract as to additional water.

Article 8 recites the plans for construction of Imperial Dam and Parker Dam, the value of these works in connection with the proposed Arizona projects, and the purpose of this contract to insure that these works shall not be interfered with.

Article 9 ends the explanatory recitals and introduces the cov

enants.

10. Delivery of water by the United States.

Article 10 states the promise of the United States to deliver water. The United States undertakes to deliver annually so much water as may be necessary to enable the beneficial consumptive use in Arizona of not to exceed 2,800,000 acre-feet, effected by all diversions from the Colorado River and its tributaries below Lee Ferry other than the Gila. This undertaking is parallel to the promise in the California water contracts; i. e., to deliver from the reservoir whatever water may be required to make up a total whose other components are uses effected by the contractor from sources other than discharges from Hoover Dam. It will be noted that the Gila River is specifically excepted. Uses on the Gila River are not affected or limited by this contract, nor would such uses be deducted from the total to be furnished Arizona.

This promise to deliver water will be subject to five stipulations: (a) The contract is without prejudice to the claims of Arizona and States of the upper basin as to respective rights to waters of the Colorado, and relates only to waters physically available for delivery in the lower basin. In other words, the contract deals entirely with waters to be discharged from Hoover Dam, and is a contract made pursuant to section 5 of the Boulder Canyon project act for delivery of stored water. It does not purport to be an agreement between Arizona and the upper basin States.

(b) The United States does not undertake to deliver water above Hoover Dam, but it is provided that to the extent that diversions in Arizona at points above Hoover Dam diminish the river to the reservoir, deliveries to Arizona from the reservoir will be likewise curtailed.

Paragraph (c) recites the controversy between Arizona and other contractors as to the quantity of water available to each under Article III-A and Article III-B of the Colorado River compact, what part is surplus water, and what part is affected by the limitations on California's uses stated in section 4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon project act. Accordingly, the United States, while it undertakes to supply the quantities of water stated by the contract, specifically provides that the contract is without prejudice to relative claims of priorities as between Arizona and other water contractors, and that this contract shall not impair any agreement previously authorized by the Secretary's regulations (i. e., California contracts).

Paragraph (d) provides that the contract is without prejudice to the right of the United States to make further disposition of any waters available in the lower basin, not covered by this or previous contracts; and that the contract is without prejudice to the respective claims of the various States and of Mexico to such additional water.

Paragraph (e), as in the case of the California contracts, provides that the water shall be delivered continuously, so far as reasonable diligence will permit, to the extent that such water is beneficially used for irrigation and domestic purposes. The customary disclaimer of liability for failure of supply, appearing in all the California contracts, is inserted here.

11. Subordinate contracts authorized.

Article 11 provides that deliveries of water under the contract will be made by the United States to lands within any Indian Reservation and to any individual, irrigation district, corporation or political subdivision of Arizona which may qualify under the reclamation law or other Federal statute. It is provided that contracts with such water users may be made by the Secretary in his discretion and that deliveries made under such subordinate contracts shall be deemed made in partial discharge of the obligations of this contract.

12. Points of diversion; Measurement of water.

Article 12 provides that deliveries will be measured at the points of diversion by measuring devices approved by the Secretary subject to Federal inspection and provides for estimates by the Secretary of deliveries at points where such devices are not maintained.

13. Records of water deliveries.

Article 13 obligates the State to render monthly reports to the United States of quantities of water diverted.

14. No charges for delivery of water.

Article 14 provides that no charge shall be made for the delivery or storage of water for irrigation or potable purposes. This is the same provision appearing in the All-American Canal contract and the proposed Palo Verde contract. It will be recalled that the Boulder Canyon project act, while specifically exempting Imperial and Coachella lands from payment for the storage of water, made no such provision in favor of Arizona. Nevertheless, this contract proposes to voluntarily waive any charge for the service of storing water for use in Arizona. In other words, Arizona makes no contribution towards the cost of Hoover Dam.

15. No Arizona diversions to be made except pursuant hereto; Diversions in other States.

Article 15 states the promise running from Arizona which is the consideration for execution and performance by the United States of this contract. The article recites that it is the object of the contract to assure all contractors with the United States the quiet enjoyment of their respective water contracts. Three stipulations follow:

(a) Arizona agrees that it will grant no permits for use of waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries (other than the Gila), except subject to the terms of this contract.

(b) Arizona agrees that the State and its permittees will not interfere by litigation or otherwise with deliveries of water to any other Government contractor under the regulations of April 23, 1930, and September 28, 1931 (i. e., California contracts), nor with the construction of diversion works—unless and until such contractor interferes by litigation or otherwise with the performance of Arizona's contract. However, in the event of interference by a California contractor with enjoyment by Arizona of its contract, the State may