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 />001808 <br /> <br />that of using every means to retard development in the lower State <br />until the uses within the upper State have reached their maximum. <br /> <br />Now, the lower basin States wanted the assistance of the Federal <br />Government in terms ot OU~La~ng a dam such as Hoover Dam. ~~ that <br />time the actual site of such a dam had not been determined by the <br />appropriate engineers. <br /> <br />But this matter of history to which I have referred, which must be <br />looked at in interpreting the provisions of the compact, will be found <br />substantiated by contemporary statements from Commissioner Emerso~ of <br />Wyoming, the citation there would be page A-l23 of the document I <br />referred to previously; Legal Adviser Sloan, of Arizona, in a published <br />statement appearing at page A-65; the statement I referred to pre- <br />viously by Herbert Hoover, representing the united States, at page <br />A-37; and a statement by the Honorable Delph Carpenter which appears <br />on page A-BO. <br /> <br />Now, in the light of that history, it is our conclusion that article <br />lII(e), dealing with this so-called prohibition on the withholding of <br />water bars only arbitrary and unreasonable withholding of water and <br />in the light of article III (d) of the compact, the storage project <br />which is pending before this committee for authorization is not an <br />arbitrary withholding of water. <br /> <br />Herbert Hoover said, referring to this very provision upon which <br />Governor Johnson bases his conclusions: <br /> <br />This paragraph applies only to an unreasonable or arbitrary with- <br />holding or demand. I do not anticipate either arbitrary action or <br />unreasonableness on the part of any of the States concerned. The <br />upper States can gain nothing by withholding water not needed, nor <br />can the lower States gain by demanding water for which they have no <br />use. The paragraph is of value as an expression of the prohibition <br />of such action but I doubt if it is ever called into practical effect. <br />(P. A-39, the Hoover Dam documents.) <br /> <br />The very purpose of the project which is pending before this com- <br />mittee for authorization is to equa~ize the flow of this river at Lee <br />Ferry. In that way it is proposed that the upper obligation shall <br />meet the obligation under article III (d) not to deplete the flow at <br />Lee Ferry below 75 million acre-feet in any continuous lO-year period. <br /> <br />The intention of the plan pending before this committee is not to <br />store water which is not reasonably necessary to meet this obligation. <br />This seems clearly to be anything but an "arbitrary withholding" in <br />the words of Mr. Hoover. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.