Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001392 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />eto., then the preoedin~ answer would seem -to elimina-te <br /> <br /> <br />any question concerning it. No matter how we may view <br /> <br /> <br />the question from New Mexioo's standpoint. we are oompel_ <br /> <br /> <br />led to say that we do not see how New Mexioo oould in any <br /> <br /> <br />wise be interested in any of the water affeotin~ Brid~e <br /> <br /> <br />Canyon dlllIl site. <br /> <br /> <br />ANSWER TO QUESTION NO., 3: <br /> <br /> <br />Is one whioh probably should be p resented in <br /> <br /> <br />conneotion with Question No.1 in view of the faot that <br /> <br /> <br />it is one ~oin~ direotly to the Federal Power COIIlI1lission. <br /> <br /> <br />We feel that nothing oould be gained by going into <br /> <br /> <br />the long hbtorioal data, with v.nioh everyone is more or <br /> <br /> <br />less familiar. oonoerning the attempt u!'on Arizona's part <br /> <br /> <br />-to seoure what she believes were great benefits that might <br /> <br /> <br />aoorue to her by virtue of her position uP''U the river. <br /> <br /> <br />We therefore refrain from this side of the matter. <br /> <br /> <br />At the last session of Arizona's LegiSlature, <br /> <br /> <br />Arizona attempted to ratii'y the Colorado River COlllpact <br /> <br /> <br />using as a basis for her ratifioation the Boulder Canyon <br /> <br /> <br />Projeot Aot. Exoeption was taken to this by the State of <br /> <br /> <br />California. The objeotions made did not appear to us to <br /> <br /> <br />be well taken and it was our belief that the exoeptions <br /> <br /> <br />made by the State of CIll Hornia were only for the purpose <br /> <br /> <br />of putting California upon a trading basis with Arizona. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />14. <br />