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 />001871 <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCBEL. Do you intend to comment on the other provisions, <br />Mr. Bennett? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. I have been commenting on a number of them as I go <br />along. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCBEL. I mean in connection with this 7~ million because <br />I think that is one question that is in dispute around here. <br /> <br />SENATOR ANDERSON. I do not want to interrupt. But since you have <br />had one interruption, do you intend to deal with IV(c)? You dealt <br />with IV(b) and said it was not unusual, it was the usual law of the <br />land. I differ from what Governor Johnson says as to the purpose of <br />IV(c). I hope that sometime you will comment on that. <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. My notes from which I am talking here do <br />that. It was a new point which was raised this morning. <br />pared to comment now in a general way but I would rather <br />up until tomorrow. <br /> <br />not include <br />I am pre- <br />hold that <br /> <br />It is very clear from the contemporary materials that the compact <br />does permit the generation of power anywhere on the stream. In that <br />connection I call your attention to statements of the Honorable Delph <br />Carpenter of Colorado which will be found on page A-I02 of the House <br />document referred to previously. Also, you will find similar remarks <br />by Mr. Sloan of Arizona, which will be found at page A-74 of the House <br />document. <br /> <br />In speaking of the compact as a whole, the representative for the <br />United States, the Honorable Herbert Hoover, said at page A-41 of <br />that compilation: <br /> <br />As a matter of fact the power possibilities of the river are in <br />no way diminished by the compact unless it is assumed that there is <br />not to be an equitable division of the water. <br /> <br />It is very clear he would not have made that statement if he had <br />believed that the provisions of this compact could reasonably be inter- <br />preted to deny the right to generate power in the upper division of <br />the river basin. <br /> <br />Mr. Sloan, who was legal adviser to the Arizona Commissioner, said: <br /> <br />There is no where in the compact any limitation upon the use of <br />water anywhere for power except that such use in the upper basin may <br />not limit or restrict the use of the water for agriculture and <br />domestic uses in the l~~er basin. <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.