Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001866 <br /> <br />the following: <br /> <br />To secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development <br />of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the pro- <br />tection of life and property f~om floods. <br /> <br />I repeat, "the storage of its waters." <br /> <br />The representative of the United states in the negotiation of the <br />compact was Herbert Hoover, who later became President of the United <br />States. In response to questions from Congressman Hayden, of Arizona, <br />which were contemporaneous with consideration of the compact by the <br />States which were made parties thereto, Mr. Hoover said the following, <br />which will be found at Page A-37 of House Document 717 of the 80th <br />Congress, otherwise known as the Hoover Dam documents. <br /> <br />The future development of the Colorado River Basin is dependent <br />wholly upon the creation of storage. The lower states have certainly <br />reached the limit of development by the direct diversion of the flow <br />of the river. <br /> <br />Now, let us examine the reasons for Mr. Hoover's statement at that <br />time. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCHEL. 'i1hat was the date of that document, Mr. Bennett? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. It was January 30, 1923. <br /> <br />SENATOR ANDERSON. It is in the Congressional Record at that point. <br />His letter was dated January 27, 1923; Mr. Hoover's letter. <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. Prior to the ratification, I might add, by any of <br />the States. <br /> <br />The reason for Mr. Hoover's statement appears rather clear when <br />we look at the interpretative material which is available to us from <br />that period. To begin with, let us look at the historical situation <br />of the Colorado River when the negotiators sat down to negotiate the <br />compact. At that time the appropriators in California in particular <br />had already developed enough uses of that river so that they did not <br />have a safe yield in low-water years. That meant then that if further <br />uses were to be developed in the lower basin there would have to be <br />some large-scale storage provided. <br /> <br />The upper-basin States were resisting that movement to.bring addi- <br />tional storage. That, of course, was of great concern to Cal~fornia. <br /> <br />3 <br />