cient money in the Colorado River Dam fund for such work. It is stipulated that no liability shall accrue against the United States or its employees by reason of failure of appropriations or lack of money in the Colorado River Dam fund, but it is provided that if Congress fails to appropriate money within five years of execution of the contract, or if for any other reason construction is not commenced within that time and completed with reasonable diligence, any party may terminate its obligations upon one year's written notice to the other parties. Work was actually started within three months of execution of the contracts and has been diligently prosecuted. 37. Modifications.

Article 37 provides that any modification, extension, or waiver made by the Secretary in favor of any lessee or allottee shall not be denied to any other.

38. Member of Congress clause.

Article 38 contains a prohibition, required by statute, against benefit to a Member of Congress, etc.

39. Signatures.

The contract was closed on April 26, 1930, in Los Angeles, by the signatures of John R. Haynes for the city and its department of water and power, of John B. Miller for the Southern California Edison Co. Ltd., and acceptance of the instrument by the Federal representative for transmittal to the Secretary.

(C) POWER CONTRACTS WITH ALLOTTEES OTHER THAN THE LESSEES Simultaneously with the execution of the lease to the city and company, a contract was entered into on April 26, 1930, with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for the purchase by the latter of electrical energy. Similar contracts were later entered into with the Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation on November 12, 1931, the Southern Sierras Power Co. on November 5, 1931, the City of Pasadena on September 29, 1931, the City of Glendale on November 12, 1931, and the City of Burbank on November 12, 1931. The following are the points in which the contracts with allottees differ from each other and from the provisions of the lease.

Minimum annual payment.-The district was accorded (art. 14) a load-building period similar to that of the two lessees, as its aqueduct will probably not be fully loaded at the outset. No such provision appears in the contracts of the other allottees.

Performance bond.-Article 28 of the district contract requires the district to post a performance bond on demand of the Secretary. This provision does not appear in the contract of the other allottees. The lessees' prepayment for machinery constitutes security for performance, aside from their investment in transmission lines. And as the company remains obligated to take and pay for all energy not taken by the two utilities, and the city remains obligated to take all energy not taken by the three municipalities, a bond requirement was therefore not necessary in the contracts of these other allottees.

Duration of contract.-As has been pointed out in a discussion of the city and company lease, all contracts terminate on the same date, i. e., 50 years after the date at which energy is ready for delivery to the city. The city and the municipalities begin to take energy simultaneously; the district one year later; and the three utilities three years after the city first takes energy.

Charges to be paid the United States.-All allottees undertake to pay the United States for credit to the lessees on account of the use of leased equipment in generating energy for the allottees.

Allocation of electrical energy.-The allocation in the lease and the Metropolitan contracts is identical. But the city and municipalities on the one hand and the Edison Co. and the utilities on the other hand entered into different arrangements among themselves for sharing the energy allocated to the two groups. The allocation clause in these five contracts is therefore not uniform in two particulars:

1. Pursuant to the arrangement between the city and the municipalities, the city remains solely obligated to take and pay for one-half the unused State energy, and that obligation is not shared by the municipalities. In return, the city retains the right to take its original share of secondary energy in the event of failure by the district to do so, and the municipalities acquire no such right.

2. But by agreement between the company and the two utilities, the latter each undertake to assume 10 per cent of the company's original obligation and benefits; i. e., each of them undertakes to take and pay for 10 per cent of the State energy which the Edison Co. would otherwise be required to take, as well as 10 per cent of the 9 per cent of firm energy which constituted the Edison Co.'s original firm allocation; and in return each of them receives 10 per cent of such secondary energy as the Edison Co. may be privileged to take.

In these respects the allocation as it appears in Article 7 of the contracts with the Los Angeles Gas and Electric Corp. and the Southern Sierras Power Co. differs from the allocation as it appears in Article 14 of the lease and in Article 7 of the district contract and Article 7 of the municipalities contracts.

Generation and transmission.-The contracts differ in designation of generating and transmitting agencies as between the allottees, of

course.

Taxation. The municipalities (art. 21) also undertake severally to levy and collect taxes necessary to pay the United States, if required. This provision does not appear in the contracts of the City of Los Angeles or of the district; each of the latter is self-liquidating, whereas the municipalities are dependent on the city's construction and operation of transmission lines for the receipt of their power.

2. THE CALIFORNIA WATER CONTRACTS

(A) THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT WATER CONTRACT This contract was executed on April 24, 1931, in 22 Articles, one day in advance of the execution of the power contracts.

Articles 1-5 are explanatory recitals.

6. Delivery of water by United States.

This article as originally drawn accorded with an agreement of February 21, 1930, between the district and other water claimants. The United States agreed to deliver 1,050,000 acre-feet annually. After the new seven-party agreement of August 18, 1931, the water contract was amended on September 28, 1931, to accord with it. The language used is uniform, as to allocations, with the other Federal

water contracts.

This article contains 12 sections which make an apportionment in the form of seven priorities.

acres.

Section 1 accords a first priority to the Palo Verde Irrigation District of water for use within that district on a gross area of 104,500 As this land is near the river bank and a large return flow can be expected, no attempt was made to fix a number of acre-feet. Section 2 accords a second priority to the Yuma project for use within the limits of that project in California in an amount required by 25,000 acres. As in the case of Palo Verde, no figure in acre-feet was stated, but see the limitations in section 3 on the total of priorities 1, 2, and 3.

Section 3 runs jointly in favor of (a) Imperial Irrigation District and other lands to be served from the All-American Canal in Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and (b) Palo Verde Irrigation District. The quantity is 3,850,000 acre-feet less beneficial consumptive uses under sections 1 and 2. Palo Verde's share in this third priority is the water required for use on 16,000 acres of the "Lower Palo Verde Mesa "; the balance is allocated collectively to the Imperial Irrigation District and the other lands named. The two rights designated (a) and (b) are equal in priority.

Section 4 recognizes a fourth priority in the Metropolitan Water District and/or the City of Los Angeles, for use on the Coastal Plain, amounting to 550,000 acre-feet annually.

Section 5 accords a fifth priority jointly to (a) the Metropolitan Water District and/or the City of Los Angeles and (b) the City and/or County of San Diego. Right (a) is in the amount of 550,000 acrefeet and (b) is in the amount of 112,000 acre-feet. The rights designated (a) and (b) are equal in priority.

Section 6 recognizes a sixth joint priority in (a) the Imperial Irrigation District and other lands served by the All-American Canal in Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and (b) the Palo Verde Irrigation District for use on 16,000 acres in the lower Palo Verde Mesa. These two rights are equal in priority and total 300,000 acre-feet.

Section 7 grants a seventh priority of all remaining water available for use in California "for agricultural use in the Colorado River Basin in California."

The remaining five sections are supplemental in character.

Section 8 states the agreement of all the allottees that the Metropolitan Water District and/or the City of Los Angeles may have the right to divert water accumulated in the Boulder Canyon Reservoir by reason of reduced diversion by the district and/or the city, up to 4,750,000 acre-feet; but a proviso states that all accumulations shall be subject to such conditions as to accumulation, retention, release, and withdrawal as the Secretary may prescribe, and the United States reserves the right to make similar arrangements with users in other States. This accumulative-storage provision was the result of a compromise between the Metropolitan Water District and agricultural claimants and was part of the consideration for which the Metropolitan District agreed to the relative priorities assigned to it. (Secs. 4 and 5-c.) Representatives of the United States, during the

negotiation of the seven-party agreement of August 18, 1931, insisted on the proviso quoted, whereby the Secretary reserves the power to prescribe conditions under which the privilege may be exercised. The City of Los Angeles ratified the seven-party agreement subject to a reservation that its approval should not prejudice its power contract with the United States. The power lease (Art. 6) contemplates a total storage capacity of 29,500,000 acre-feet.

Section 9 is like section 8 except that the parties in whose favor it runs are the City and/or County of San Diego and the quantity is 250,000 acre-feet.

Section 10 provides that the allocations to the Metropolitan Water District and/or the city represent a total for the two, and not a separate allocation to each.

Section 11 is like section 10, except that the parties named are the city and/or county of San Diego.

Section 12 stipulates that the priorities stated are not to be affected by relative dates of water contracts executed by the Secretary with the various parties.

This ends the quotation of the seven-party water agreement as employed in all the Federal water contracts.

The next succeeding paragraph reserves authority to the Secretary to contract with any allottee in accordance with the outline of priorities just given. Further, he reserves the right stipulated by the conditions attached to Palo Verde's ratification of the seven-party agreement, i. e., to contract with that irrigation district either in accordance with the quoted schedule, or, if that allocation is substituted by another agreement or by a final judicial determination, to contract with the Palo Verde Irrigation District in accordance with such agreement or determination, provided that the Metropolitan water priorities noted fourth and fifth should not therefore be disturbed.

The balance of the article recites that water shall be delivered as reasonably required for the district's purposes, but subject to the condition that the dam shall be used as required by the project act; i. e., first for regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control; second for irrigation and domestic uses and satisfaction of present perfected rights; and third for power. Here also is the stipulation required by the project act that the contract is subject to the Colorado River Compact. The United States reserves the right