Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0022JO <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />and distributing them to users in the States. The ses- <br />sion convened on December 3, 1928, on the fifth <br />the Senate took up the bill,.5 nine days later the bill <br />with significant amendments passed the Senate,.. four <br />days after that the House concurred in the Senate's ac- <br />tion," and on the twenty-first the President signed the <br />bilJ.68 When the bill first reached the Senate floor, it had <br />a provision, added in committee, limiting California to <br />4,600,000 acre-feet,.' and Senator Hayden on December 6 <br />proposed reducing that share to 4,200,000.70 The next <br />day, December 7, Mr. Pittman, senior Senator from <br />Nevada, vigorously argued that Congress should settle the <br />matter without delay. He said, <br />"What is the difficulty? We have only minor <br />questions involved here. There is practically noth- <br />ing involved except a dispute between the States of <br />Arizona and California with regard to the division <br />of the increased water that will be impounded be- <br />hind the proposed dam; that is all. . .. Of the <br />7,500,000 acre-feet of water let down that river they <br />have gotten together within 400,000 acre-feet. They <br />have got to get together, and if they do not get <br />together Congress should bring them together." 71 <br />The day after that, December 8, New Mexico's Senator <br />Bratton suggested an amendment splitting the difference <br />between the demands of Arizona and California by limit- <br />ing California to 4,400,000 acre-feet.7' On the tenth, re- <br /> <br />.570 Congo Rec. 67 (1928). <br />6.ld" at 603, <br />67Id., at 837-838. <br />68 45 Stat. 1057. <br />69 See S. Rep. No. 592, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1928). <br />7070 Congo Rec. 162 (1928). <br />71 ld., at 232. <br />7. ld., at 277, 385. <br />