WSP03356

• File Number: 8210.110.60
• Description: Colorado River Water Users Association
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 12/8/1952
• Author: CRWUA
• Title: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

''Relative to your comments concerning Article 38
of the Repayment Contract between the United States and
the Provo River Water Users Association, I cannot agree
that the provision for Secretarial approval calls merely
for the ministerial function described in your letter.
Surely it must be conceded that Article 3~ envisions
Federal development as well as Association development.
It. seems apparent in these circumstances that the
requirement of Secretarial approval is intended
primarily to protect and preserve the rights 01' the
United States to carry forward its own development plans."

This the Association answered by letter of September 24, 1951:

"Surely it must be conceded, and is, that Article 38
envisions Federal as well as Association development, and
the conditions to be satisfied by either are set forth in
the article itself. After many years of Federal neglect
the Association made the first election.

"Certainly it is not t apparent' from anything in
Article 38 that the necessity for Secretarial approval
was intended 'pl'imarily' Ol' at all to protect and pre-
serve the rights 01' the United states to carry forward
its own development plans. The :Implications 01' the
article and the extraneous facts are of opposite effect.
At the t:Ime the article was agreed upon the United States
had no power development plans of its own affecting the
Deer Creek Division of the Provo River Project. The
Deer Creek Dam was constructed for the exclusive benefit
of the Provo River Water Users Association, and the power
development features built into the Deer Creek Dam were
and still are charged against it on the government
l'ecords as a pal't of the construction costs.

"The Federal government neither had nol' has any "rights"
in the premises to be protected or preserved. What it had
and has are obligations -~ obligations to the water users
for wham alone the project was constructed and for whom
alone the benefits of its power possibilities were planned
and promised."

~ere the matter rested until about July 1, 1952 when, it having
been brought to his pel'sonal attention again, the Secretary consented to a
re-hearing in Washington on July 3, during which he asked for and was
prOmised the Power Company proposal in detail. This proposal was received
by the Association on August 5, and presented to its Board of Directors
on August 8. Meant:Ime, the Bureau of Reclamation had in preparation a
second plan for development of project power by the government, and in
deference to reCl.uest of the Regional Director, consideration Of, action
upon, and tl'ansmittal 01' the Power Company's proposal was deferred until
completion and exposition of that plan. The Regional Director appeared
before the Directors of the Association on September 22 and October 24,
and then the Board was finally able to determine the course appl'opriate
to its interests and obligations. It adopted this:

-23-