My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06768
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
19000-19999
>
WSPC06768
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:07:44 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:04:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
2/28/1955
Author
Elmer Bennet
Title
AZ Vs CA - Legal Documents 1958-1965 - Excerpts from Hearings on S 500 - Statement of Elmer Bennet - 02-28-55 through 03-05-55
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001873 <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. I would not be aware of that. I can say this, sir, <br />that so far as we know neither one of these questions are in litiga- <br />tion at the present time. It should be remembered that the upper <br />division States have not been joined in that litigation to date between <br />Arizona and California, and in our judgment they could not reasonably <br />be considered as issues before the Supreme Court in the present <br />posture of that litigation. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCHEL. Do you have any comment to make on the two sub- <br />divisions of article III (d) as against (a) and do you have any opinion <br />on whether III (b) which was the subject of Governor Johnson's dis- <br />cussion here takes precedence over any rights of the upper basin <br />under III(a)? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. I would say this: we are of the opinion that the two <br />must be read together. We do feel that, so far as the legislation <br />before this committee is concerned, its very purpose is to make possible <br />the regulated flow of at least 75 million acre-feet of water to the <br />lower basin States in any continuous 10-year period. <br /> <br />I might call your attention, sir. to the fact that section 12 of <br />the bill, which is pending before this committee, S. 500, in its first <br />sentence, reads as follows: <br /> <br />In the operation and maintenance of all facilities authorized by <br />Federal law and under the jurisdiction and supervision of the Secre- <br />tary of the Interior, in the basin of the Colorado River, the Secre- <br />tary of the Interior is directed to comply with the applicable pro- <br />visions of the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, <br />the Boulder canyon project Adjustment Act, and the Treaty with the <br />united Mexican States, in the storage and release of water from reser- <br />voirs in the Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />That we intend to do, sir. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCHEL. Now, Mr. Bennett, do you have any op~n~on as to <br />whether or not the upper basin could withhold water for power purposes <br />and power generation if it were required for reasonable use in the <br />lower basin for agriculture or domestic purposes? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. We believe very definitely, Senator Kuchel, as I <br />believe my statement indicated, that such water would have to be re- <br />leased. if it were being held only for generation of power in the <br />upper basin and there were reasonable requirements for agriculture <br />or domestic uses below. <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.