Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'-, <br /> <br />We wottld join heartily with California and with any other agency that <br /> <br />would promote appropriations by Congl"eaB for the cmstructi.on of <br /> <br />Bridge Canyon Dam and Glen Canyon Dam for the development of power. <br /> <br />We need the power very much in Nevada for mining, pumping, and while <br /> <br />we apparently have a substantial a,llotment of power, being 18% of the <br /> <br />firm power generated by the Boulder Dam plant, unfortunately, the <br /> <br />conditions that have been set up under the general eegulations for the <br /> <br />operation of Boulder Dam are such that Nevada's free and unrestricted <br /> <br />use of that power for the benefit of industries and the development of <br /> <br />the State, are very much hampered. Part of that is due, of course, <br /> <br />to the fact that there is a very high demand now for all of the hydro <br /> <br />power now generated by Boulder Dam. With the construction and <br /> <br />operation of new power sites on the river, these restr'lctions probably <br /> <br />might he made more liberal for Nevada, or if that <:cdld not be brought <br /> <br />c:.bout, Nevada would be in a position to secure power fr",m some of the <br /> <br />other sources under more acceptable conditions, which, putting it ve ry <br /> <br />frankly, is one of the reasons we are very anxious in Nevada to see the <br /> <br />construction of more power plants on the Lower Colorado River. They will <br /> <br />be of benefit to the Downstream States. <br /> <br />That is all I have. <br /> <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN: Would you then say that you would favor <br /> <br /> <br />releasing that requirement uthat the water be allocated before <br /> <br /> <br />appropriations are made for the construction of purely power projects, <br /> <br />that don't diminish the flow of the stream: that you think we ought to be <br /> <br />. ~ <br /> <br />-4Z- <br /> <br />lj <br /> <br />",;'<> <br />