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 />001872 <br /> <br />As I explained before, that limitation was not novel;it is a limita- <br />tion which has been written into the reclamation law. <br /> <br />SENATOR WATKINS. That is true in practically every State out in <br />........_.... ____"'1 <br />....,u,Q,'- c:l.a.CQ;;; <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT: Yes. <br /> <br />Delph Carpenter of Colorado expressed like views in his supple- <br />mental report to the Colorado legislature which will be found at <br />page A-lOa of House Document 717 of the 80th congress. <br /> <br />In conclusion it is our judgment that the Colorado River compact <br />contemplates storage and regulation of the flow of the river whenever <br />and wherever reasonably necessary to realize the apportionments made <br />in article II of the compact. <br /> <br />It is also our conclusion that there is no prohibition against the <br />generation of electricity anywhere in the basin, subject to the para- <br />mountcy assigned to domestic and agricultural uses and provided that <br />there is no interference with apportionments made in article III of <br />the compact. <br /> <br />SENATOR ANDERSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Bennett. You have <br />a very fine statement. Naturally I am a little bit prejudiced. <br />think it is an extremely good statement. <br /> <br />made <br />I <br /> <br />SENATOR i'1ATKINS. This was merely a restatement of what is gen- <br />erally accepted as the policy in practically all the Western States <br />or practically any other place because of the fact that water used for <br />development of power is nonconsumptive use. It does not interfere <br />with water for agricultural or domestic purposes unless it is in some <br />way restricted or impounded. <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. That is correct. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCHEL. Mr. Bennett, is the op1.n1.on that you just gave to <br />the committee the opinion of the Department of Interior on these <br />points? <br /> <br />MR. BENNETT. I have been delegated by the acting solicitor to <br />speak for the department with reference to the two questions to which <br />I have limited my attention. <br /> <br />SENATOR KUCHEL. Does the Attorney General of the United States <br />agree with that opinion? <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.