Laserfiche WebLink
<br />12 <br /> <br />ASSEMBLY INTERIM COMMITTEE ON WATER <br /> <br />0021109 <br /> <br />Assemblyman Porter: Is this the one that you helped write? <br />Mr. Goldberg: Yes, Mr. Steiner and I worked on parts of this. <br />Assemblyman Porter: Good. So you are quoting yourself? 4 <br /> <br />This odd juxtaposition. of officials-with a leading California water <br />official as a spokesman and ghost writer for a bill authorizing a project <br />which an Arizona Senator termed," . . . the most impor,tarit piece of <br />legislation in his congressional career," 5 - has not been adequately <br />.'..1." ~.t...h"~"'..'. .~'-' '.1 o~l'f. '.' 't'..'O""rl' <br />exn ::l.lnAIJ ,o't l~ '(';()mmlt.tpp' RTIfJ' r1j:}RJ n :;l(,pn 1_;fLLOr1l1a' a-, R '-tlS!1_van- <br />tage in all subsiiquent acti~~~;~g;~di~g.--(5;iorado River water. . <br />Concern over this activity of California officials was expressed by the <br />Vice Chairman of the California Water Commission immediately fol- <br />lowing a presentation to the commission by Mr. Steiner on the Goldberg <br />Amendment: <br /> <br />Mr. Jennings: Mr. Steiner, I have some comments and some questions <br />in regard to your material. I would like to preface it by saying you <br />make a very good advocate for the position of Arizona. How good an <br />advocate you make for the position of California I'm not too sure of. <br /> <br />Then followed this interesting colloquy: <br /> <br />Mr, Jennings: . . . I would like to ask you this, from the viewpoint <br />of California alone without regard to political possibilities and false <br />premises whether of one nature or another in connection with a project <br />bill with a priority for existing uses, of course, limited to California's <br />adjudicated 4.4 million for all projects wherever located, would not <br />that be to California's advantage if it could be obtained? <br /> <br />Mr, Steiner: Yes, it would be advantageous. <br />Mr. Jennings: So it is a position then that is a legitimate position for <br />California to take when it is addressing its view to the best of Cali- <br />fornia, is that not true? <br />Mr. Steiner: Yes.6 <br /> <br />The long series of events since April 1964-negotiation of the Gold- <br />berg Amendment, the subsequent preparation of arguments in favor of <br />it through the medium of the Senate Committee Report No. 1330, and <br />the eontinuing statements of support for. the Goldberg Amendment by <br />administration officials-have served to divide California and have not <br />advanced the interests of California, particularly those Californians <br />who rely upon Colorado River water for their supply. <br />Regrettably, it is true the public pronouncements of Mr. Goldberg <br />and Mr. Steiner do indeed sound more as if they were speaking for <br />Arizona than for California. For example, referring the California <br />Water Commission to a chart showing water supply available in the <br />lower basin, Mr. Steiner stated that the <br /> <br />Chart . . . demonstrates why Arizona will never willingly agree <br />to, and Congress, in my view, will never force her to accept, an in <br />. perpetuity priority to California,7 <br /> <br />"Hearing Transcript, August 13, 1964, at 108. <br />5 Sacramento Bee, August 4, 1964, at All. <br />6 Transcript ~f California 'Water Commission meeting, August 7., 1964, at 23, 24. <br />(EmphaSIS added.) .,. . <br />7 Ibid.~ at 16. <br />