Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />001367 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION ON BRIDGE CANYON MATTER <br /> <br />MR. SHAWl (Reading) Resolved, by the official representatives <br />of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah <br />and Wyoming, assembled in conference of the inter-state Connni ttee of <br />Fourteen at Los Angeles on June 7, 1939, <br /> <br />That, it is desirable t~t pencli.ng discussions among said states <br />should proceed further, upon the question vmether said states, other <br />than Arizona, should file protests against Arizona IS applicati on to the <br />Federal Power Connnission for a permit for a power dam at Bridge Canyon <br />on the Colorado Riverl <br /> <br />And for that purpose said seven states do unanimously request <br />said Connnissi on to extend tine for the filing of such protests by the <br />states of California, ColoradO, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to <br />the blank day of blank, 19 blank. <br /> <br />MR. DAVIS I I would lika to ask a point of informati on. I VlOuld <br />lika to know whether any of the states were asked by the Federal Power <br />CommiSSion, except the Upper Basin states whether there was any objection? <br /> <br />MR. SHAW: I think the discussion was general as to all six of <br />the states rather than any part of' them. I think the states' plan should <br />be general rather than limited to the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />MR. DAVIS I We understood that the Federal Power Commission <br />asked the governors of the Upper Basin states if they had any objection. <br />That has been lrII! impression: in faot, I do not see how California or <br />Nevada, being below, would be affected by it. <br /> <br />MR. JENKINS: AD;ybody can f'i Ie an objeotion that wishes to. <br /> <br />MR. SHAW I I think that the users on the lower part of a stream <br />are always interested in the users ups tream. <br /> <br />MR. DA.VIS: If you are diverting water that is one thing, <br /> <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN STONE I Mr. Davis, what date should we put in here? <br /> <br />MR. GIlESI Can't we have a date fixed now. Mr. Davis, you <br />folks are taking three monihs for your brief and we ought to have soma <br />time after that. I think that we ought to have another three months to <br />answer it aJ:though we may not need that much time. <br /> <br />MR. DAVIS, That is your suggesti on. <br /> <br />MR. GILES I Do you have any objeotion? <br /> <br />MR. DAVIS, It was your suggestion that we make a brief. <br /> <br />MR. GILES I I would rather not go into that. I move \W ad opt <br />the resolution that was just read vii. th the date inserted of January 1st, <br />