Laserfiche WebLink
<br />) <br /> <br />001345 <br /> <br />It is stipulated in the Boulder Dam Act that there are 2,800,000 <br />acre feet alloted to Arizona and one half of the. surplus. There are also <br />three points in there that are embodied in a tri-state agreement between <br />Arizona, California and Nevada. These provisionS, in the enactment of this <br />law, were lifted bodily, verbatim, word for word, out of the Dam Aot <br />beoause we did not want there to be any question about putting other things <br />in there. That is why our attorney considered that -we did not add anything <br />new and that -we were taldng only that whioh had been already agreed upon. <br /> <br />A.s far as the Upper Basin is eonoerned, by Arizona ratifying the <br />Compaot, your statement has been to us, you 'WOuld not have aIr:! oonoern <br />about Bridge Canyen. Our Governor has sent te the Governor of California <br />and to the Governor of Nevada a oopy of the law as enaoted by our legislature. <br />If and when they do omour in that tri-state agreanent it is to be sent <br />to the next governer and then from then on to the President of the United <br />States. We have heard nothing about this sinee eur Governor sent it to the <br />respeotive governors of California and Nevada. Apparently, it is sleeping <br />peacefully in their offioes somewhere. There is a stipulation in our law <br />in which one year is given to California or Nevada in whioh they oan <br />ratify it. If there is reason for furthor pre longing it, the statute <br />provides that our Governor, by prool!UOO.tion, may extend that time another <br />year, so that there is really a 'two year dead line on it, you ,mght say. <br />That dead line is put in there purposely so that it will not just be <br />floating around in the air indefinitely. In. other words, we feel that <br />Nevada and California, in the two years period, should either take it or <br />leave it alone. If they do not warit it they cm decide that in that time <br />and then we will know where we are. <br /> <br />This seems to have a very vital bearing upon tlle Bridge Canyon <br />Projeot. Our brief would have said that we intended to go ahead with the <br />developlWnt of the Bridge Canyon as rapidly as possible, We have no <br />intention or desire to infringe upon the rights of any other state. We <br />are very much interested in such a preposal as the dove lopment in utah. <br />We are very muoh oonoerned because we want to. know how muoh Water is <br />going to be taken out and how much will be let't to oemo down. We have <br />ne intention ef infringing upon the rights of' any othor state. We 'IIlUlt <br />te be in full aceord with them and in harmony with them but, on the other <br />hand, neither do we intend to develop it in our state, if we OllIl help it. <br />If there is a radioal objeotion to our filing on that from any of the <br />other states, I think it would be botter for overybedy if tlley were Known <br />as early as pessible and then we could moet i'\:. As Judge Stane said, then <br />we would know where we are if we havo the foots in the oase. <br /> <br />Mr. Chairman, that is about the situation. Wo have a site at <br />Bridge Cenyon; We have boen JIlllJdilg sane surveys reoently and are going <br />ahead with it. We want it for development iri our Own state and there is <br />nothing that we want to hide from you and oover up. <br /> <br />MR. GILES I At this time, Mr. Davis, oan you give us sane idea <br />when we may expect a brief. We are in the positien of' having to IIIl.ko an <br />answer. <br />