Laserfiche WebLink
<br />34 <br /> <br />~3 <br /> <br />to advocate the passage of the Hinshaw Bill. <br />MR. CLAYTON: They would still be in a pasition to <br />advocate the provisions of the Hinshaw Bill but I take it if a <br />contract of this kind is negotiated, that that would eliminate <br />the Hinshaw Bill. I just speak from my personal viewpoint. <br />MR. HOWELL: I would think so. But in the meantime <br />while you are undertaking these negotiations, there was no thin <br />said in advocacy or opposition to the Hinshaw Bill? <br />MR. CLAYTON: No, sir, nothing was said on either <br />side about the Hinshaw Bill or what their attitude toward it <br />would be in the light of these negotiations. <br />MR. GILES: I would Eke to ask Mr. Clayton this <br />question: Was there any discussion concerning who would deter <br />mine the availability of this extra water? <br />MR. CLAYTON: No, Sir) '~ the All-American <br />Canal contract would 'remain except to the extent that it is <br />. <br /> <br />modified by an agreement made under these proposals. The ques <br /> <br /> <br />tion of availability would remain just as it now remains under <br /> <br /> <br />the contract. I understand the Boulder Canyon Project Act <br /> <br /> <br />sets up certain priorities and power is relatively far down on <br /> <br /> <br />the list. I forget the exact order of precedence of those <br /> <br /> <br />priorities. But to the extent that water is needed for uses <br /> <br /> <br />having a higher priority than power, I assume that it wouldn't <br /> <br /> <br />be available for diversion at Imperial Dam for power purposes. <br /> <br /> <br />But here again I am getting into a field that is beyond my <br /> <br />province. <br /> <br />MR. WATSON: Mr. Chairman, may I make a. comment? <br />