BOARD02177

• Board Meeting Date: 5/5/1952
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

" -

GO

On vote beinG taker., the motion carried unanimously and was
. declared adopted.

The Board then considered the minutes of its meetinG held on December 19
and 20, 1951 (Item 6 on the aGenda).

It was moved by W. Jj. lIilliams and seconded by Judge Dan H.
Hughes, that the minutes of the meetine; of the Board held on
December 19 and 20, 1951, heretofore prepared and submitted to
each member of the Board for reading, be and the same are, hereby
approved.

I

On vote beine; taken, the motion was unanimously carried and
was declared adopted.

The next order of business was Item 5, "Reports of Director and Board
Staff !.lembers." Jean S. Breitenstein, Attorney for the Board, reported
on Items 5(a) and 5(c) of the agenda (contract betwR~n the United States
and the Imperial Irrigation District of California; and JJorth Platte ne-
cotiations).

J:r. Breitenstein reported th<1t the contract between the United
States of America and the ImpeTial Irri3ation District, an i~'ie;ation
district created and existinc under the laws of the State of California,
had been executed on behalf of the United States b:' the Secretary of the
Interior and the District in J~arch, 1952. This contract is amendatOr'J
of and supplemental to the All-American Canal contract dated December 1,
1932. It was executed pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project. Its
execution at this time beca1'le desirable in order to adjust certain con-
troversies and I~ke provision for arrancements at the United States-
Kexican border because of United States-l:exican Water Treaty. Its
execution, too, at this time, was prompted because of a directive fram
the Interior Subcommittee on ,Appropriations of the United States Senate.
The Senate had been asked by the Bureau of RecJAmation to appropriate
money each year for maintenance and operation of the Imperial Dam and
Canal and incidental works at the border. The Imperial Irrieation Dis-
trict desired an adjustment of the question and of controversies in the
area relating to their district and to arrangement-necessary to carry
out the terms of the 1~xican ~ater Treaty. The District would thereby
be able to commence repayment of its obligations to the Government and
assume certain financial obligations for the maintenance of certain works
which serve it. The question inVOlved contract teNJS which would be in
strick conformity with the Colorado River Compact, Boulder Canyon Project
Act, California Limitation Statutes and ot.her documents which constituted
the law of t.he river.

I

Arizona had vital interests in the tems of the compact, since irri-
f;ation districts in that state, under Federal ReclaQation projects, divert
water from the river and are concerned that their interest under any con-
tract be protected. States other than Arizona and California, including