Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />NR. HOSES: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />gcing tc be; but at this pcint it dces have a <br />staff which is working to cccrdinate the 11 <br />states." <br /> <br />"This is an infcrmal relationship, is it <br />not?" <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"Ne have fcrmalized it actually by Articles <br />cf Inccrporation, ycu might say. Ne have a <br />formalized structure cf by-laws and we are <br />working further new on hew we proceed from <br />this pcint. But \ve have actually published <br />Articles of - what de we call these, Ray?" <br /> <br />"Statements cf Principles." <br /> <br />"statements of principles, yes. I"le have <br />a definite type vcting arrangement, definite <br />financial ccntributions. and a definite crgan- <br />izaticn. But, of ccurse, it is purely vCluntary; <br />any state can pull cut at any time. None of <br />the 11 states have indicated at this time any <br />desire tc pull cut. As a matter of fact, I <br />think all 11 states are determined tc try tc <br />make it work." <br /> <br />"Is there any indicaticn, befcre we get intc <br />Central Arizcna again, that there will be some <br />oppcrtunity tc work cut a Cclumbia River-Colo- <br />rado River basin ccmmissicn?" <br /> <br />"I doubt if it will be possible to work it <br />cut before that time because this bill will be <br />back in Ccngress next January. <br /> <br />The Cclurnbia River Basin states made their <br />applicaticn and then Califcrnia, utah and Nevada <br />intervened, stating that they were alsc a part I <br />cf the gecgraphical area, that is, they had <br />areas in the drainage that the Cclumbia River <br />states desired tc enccmpass. Sc at this pcint <br />the commissicn has net been established and a <br />decision has tc be made as tc whether or not <br />tc admit califcrnia, utah and Nevada. Nyoming <br />is already included in there because they de <br />